North and North East Dorset Transport Study

Home , Blandford Forum, East Dorset, North Dorset

023422 - North and north East Dorset Transport Study

Working Towards a Transport Strategy

March 2010

Revision 05

Revision Description Issued by Date Checked

00 Draft Strategy Report CC January JDW 2009 01 Draft Emerging Transport Strategy CC April 2009 JDW

02 Emerging Transport Strategy CC June 2009 JDW

03 Emerging Transport Strategy CC August 2009 JDW

04 Emerging Transport Strategy CC November JDW 2009 05 Working Towards a Transport Strategy CC March 2010 JDW

This report has been prepared for the sole benefi t, use and information of client name for the purposes set out in the report or instructions commissioning it. The liability of Buro Happold Limited in respect of the information contained in the report will not extend to any third party.

Author Chris Catterall

Signature

Date March 2010

Approval Jon Dare-Williams

Signature

Date March 2010

Contents

Executive Summary 11

Overview of Study 17

The Study Area 19

Proposed Development 29

Results 41

Strategy 73

Recommendations 115

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

Appendix G

Appendix H

1 Executive Summary

North Dorset and East Dorset District Councils, as planning authorities, are required to produce a Local Development Framework (LDF) to identify how local planning issues will be managed. One of the key elements of the LDF is to identify appropriate areas for development and policies the will support the identifi ed levels of development. To inform this process, Dorset County Council, as the highway authority, and Buro Happold (transport consultants) have, with key stakeholders, working towards preparing a Working Towards a Transport Strategy to assist in the preparation of the LDF. This document lays preparatory groundwork for, and will eventually be replaced by, that Emerging Strategy. It therefore considers the existing transport networks and travel patterns within North and north East Dorset in the context of the proposed development targets.

The study area includes the whole of North Dorset and the northern part of East Dorset, excluding Wimborne Minster, Colehill, Corfe Mullen, Verwood, West Moors and Ferndown. The area is strongly rural in nature with the population clustered within four main towns: Gillingham, Shaftesbury, Blandford Forum and Sturminster Newton. Outside the study area Salisbury, Yeovil, Dorchester and Bournemouth/ Poole exert an infl uence on movement to and from the study area. North Dorset District Council’s Spatial Portrait identifi es three regional important road transport corridors: the A303 (Exeter to London), A31 (Weymouth to London) and the A350 (south east Dorset to Bristol).

The draft Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) recommends the development of over 7,000 homes within the study area to 2026. In the context of this study, the bulk of the development is within North Dorset due to the alignment of the study boundary. In order to provide a transport strategy to support this level of additional homes an indication of possible location and scale of development has been provided, without prejudice, by the District Councils. The draft RSS identifi es a ‘sliding scale’ of areas that should be considered when allocating development; Development Policy B locations, Development Policy C locations and rural exceptions. The possible development would be focused in and around the existing towns of Blandford Forum, Gillingham, Shaftesbury (Development Policy B locations) and Sturminster Newton (Development Policy C location). The remaining development could be distributed throughout the District (Development policy C and rural exceptions).

An assessment has been undertaken of the impact of the proposed development on the rural road network within the study area. Dorset has signifi cant environmental value with numerous areas protected by environmental designation. To recognise this, both Technical and Environmental Capacities have been considered.

The Technical Capacity, that is the vehicle carrying capacity (also referred to as design capacity) of the various roads in the study area, has been established to refl ect the rural nature of the road. An assessment of the impact of the hills and bends has provided an indication of the road capacity on the poorest section of each road (referred to as the ‘pinch point’). For example, the A350 has a maximum hourly vehicular throughput of 1,296 vehicles but a minimum ‘pinch point’ capacity of 468 vehicles. The impact of the development has been assessed using a strategic traffi c model and reported against the ‘pinch point’ capacity.

In an attempt to capture the wider impact of traffi c on the sensitive environment of Dorset, the study has sought to consider and quantify ‘Impact Capacity’. This is the humanistic impact that is the subject of concern for existing residents and local habitats and is considered in some depth in the Existing Conditions Report. In an attempt to address this, a number of workshops have been instigated with interested parties at local Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty group meetings. These have been extremely valuable in helping to develop an understanding of the meaning of Impact Capacity’. However, this has proved to be more diffi cult to determine and will be a stream of work that will continue past the publication of this report.

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 11 of 188 The traffi c modelling demonstrated that no section of the A350 would exceed its Technical Capacity within the modelled period. However, levels of traffi c along the A350 through existing settlements are seen to be having a detrimental impact. The A303 and A31 will be subject to additional pressure as a result of strategic traffi c movements outside of the study area. The traffi c model used for this assessment is limited in its ability to model the strategic road network accurately but it does indicate that the A31 and A35 will suff er signifi cant congestion prior to 2026. It is already noted that existing congestion on this stretch of the road network causes traffi c to divert onto local roads which may be unsuitable for strategic traffi c movements. The A303 is identifi ed by the Highways Agency as also being under signifi cant ‘stress’ up to 2026.

To assess the local allocations around the Development Policy C locations, an audit of the availability of local services and employment opportunities within walking and cycling distance has been undertaken. A number of potential sites have been tested around the Development Policy C locations and in general those closest to the centres of the areas are shown to be preferable. These sites were identifi ed by the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment.

The emerging strategy considers two groupings of measures: Non-Development Specifi c and Specifi c Corridor Measures.

Non-Development Specifi c Measures cascade across the whole of the study area and are general recommendations that reinforce existing policy guidance and best practice. Recommendations are made within the following categories:

• land use planning;

• travel planning;

• parking;

• freight;

• information provision;

• integrated ticketing;

• public rights of way.

General development land-use themes are recommended including:

• ensuring mixed use development to reduce the need to travel;

• providing public transport orientated development including maximising development opportunities around existing transport hubs;

• the provision of Travel Planning on new and existing communities are recommended.

Community Travel Exchange Centres have the potential to reduce demand for travel by providing a range of services that satisfy local requirements in an easy to access location.

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 12 of 188 Furthermore, it provides local authorities and communities with an opportunity to actively work together on a range community travel planning initiatives which could for example include taking the “Car Club” concept and turning it into a popular and well used reality as a “Village (or Parish) Car”

The Community Travel Exchange Centre has the potential to address a community’s specifi c, local, travel issues.

A demand management parking study focusing on destination parking in towns and villages will need resolution and adoption to support the LDF in order to ensure that the principles of PPG13 (March 2001) (?) in this respect are taken forward.

The ‘Dorset Residential Parking Study (DRCPS) responds to PPS3: Housing (November 2006) para.51 “Local Planning Authorities should, with stakeholders and communities, develop residential parking policies for their areas, taking account of expected levels of car ownership” by providing extensive evidence based data that leads to a design led approach for the calculation of the optimum parking demand based on an agreed, site specifi c, balance of allocated and unallocated spaces with the total demand managed so as not to exceed the locally distinctive needs of the development location. An explanatory event on the ‘DRCPS is to be held on 28th April 2010 in Dorchester and the Interim Guidelines developed as a result of the study are to be included in the public consultation draft of the ‘Dorset LTP3 planned for late summer 2010.

Freight movement through the County has a negative impact on the study area due to its rural nature. There are a number of generators of freight movement (Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs)) including the normal supply and demand for the local populous, freight passing through the study area, freight generated by Poole Harbour and freight associated with local mineral extraction and industrial areas. It is recommended that an integrated approach to managing HGVs is developed and adopted.

Providing road users with up to date and concise information can positively infl uence travel behaviour and reinforce key strategy elements. One of the key deliverables in relation to Information Provision is the Network Management Centre proposed under the Multi Area Agreement (between Dorset County Council, the District Councils and Highways Agency). The Network Management Centre will provide drivers on the County’s main roads with accurate travel information. It is recommended that bus real time passenger information be considered at the main identifi ed development areas and freight traffi c signing be reviewed and upgraded.

During the stakeholder consultation it was identifi ed that better integrated ticketing, such as the PLUSBUS scheme in Yeovil, would enhance public transport opportunities across Dorset. It is therefore recommended that this be pursued with all public transport providers in the County.

Dorset has an extensive public rights of way network that provides recreational routes across the County. The Public Rights of Way Improvement Plan provides an action plan to manage, secure and improve the existing network. This could provide opportunities for the network to be used by a wider range of travellers and it is recommended that the ability for the public rights of way network to support wider transport objectives is investigated.

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 13 of 188 Specifi c Corridor Measures consider the potential for the A350, A303 and A31/ A35 corridor to accommodate the planned growth. There are a number of existing infrastructure schemes within the district’s Local Plans and County Local Transport Plan which will be subject to a parallel review to assess their viability within the current policy and funding climate. The Highways Agency has no plans to physically improve the A303 in the area of the study. To off set the impact of vehicular traffi c for all corridors, it is recommended that walking and cycling networks be enhanced and also that public transport services along the corridor are reviewed with a view to enhancing provision.

The A350 is unlikely to exceed its Technical Capacity within the growth period but will experience an increase in traffi c. This will have wider impacts on the communities and villages along the A350. The A350 Route Management Scheme has been implemented as part of the Rural Dorset LTP2 in 2005 and Dorset are assessing the opportunity to reinforce this with additional education, enforcement and engineering measures.

The A303 corridor includes the B3092 and B3081 leading into Shaftesbury. This includes Gillingham which has the only mainline rail station in the study area. There are planned improvements to Gillingham station to enhance it as an interchange. Further opportunities to realise development in Gillingham that would utilise the station should be pursued.

The A31/ A35 corridor will suff er congestion, particularly between Puddletown and Dorchester within the study period. This is acknowledged by the Highways Agency who has undertaken a number of studies and will introduce measures to maximise the effi ciency of the route, include variable message signing. In their consultation response the Highways Agency have make it clear that they have no funding to provide capacity enhancements to accommodate the planned growth. There are proposals for a Network Traffi c Control Centre covering the wider area being brought forward by the local authorities and the Highways Agency under a Multi Area Agreement. Congestion on this corridor already causes traffi c to divert onto local roads and it is recommended that the extent and implications of the diversion be studied. Given the capacity problems identifi ed due to the planned growth it is recommended that representation be made to the Highways Agency to review the A30/ A31/ A35 Route Management Strategy.

The recommendations from the Working Towards a Transport Strategy will enable the transport network to begin to adapt to accommodate the planned growth. Recommendations cover public transport, walking and cycling, demand management and highway network and are summarised in the table below.

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 14 of 188 Executive Summary Recommendations Public Transport Provision of real time bus passenger information at Policy B and C settlements Consult on the feasibility of wider integrated public transport integrated ticketing Dorset County Council to work with local bus operators to develop a public transport strategy for the area to accommodate growth The long term feasibility of a rail link between Yeovil Junction and Yeovil Penn Mill stations be assessed Seek to maximise the opportunity for development around Gillingham rail station Expand the Demand Responsive Transport network Walking and Cycling Comprehensive audit of signs between main transport nodes and services be undertaken Produce and maintain a defi nitive database of public rights of way Implement walking and cycling improvements in identifi ed Development Policy B and C settlements

Demand Management Prioritise development that reduces the need to travel and maximise the opportunity for sustainable travel Review and update existing policy in respect of Travel Planning Assess the feasibility of providing a network of Community Travel Exchange Centres in village communities across North and north East Dorset. Agree and adopt (as Policy) a Residential and Public Parking Strategy Highway Network Produce and adopt (as Policy) a Freight Management Strategy Review all existing highway schemes in the Local Plans and Local Transport Plan to assess their likelihood of being delivered in the current Policy and fi nancial climate Identify further Route Management Strategy initiatives for the A350, A30/ B3081/ B3092 corridors Study the extent and implications of traffi c diverting onto local roads due to congestion on the A31 around Wimborne Minster Representation be made to the Highways Agency to review the A30/ A31/ A35 Route Management Strategy

2 Overview of Study

2.1 Background

Central Government requires that planning authorities produce a Local Development Framework (LDF) to identify how planning issues will be managed within their area. The LDF will consist of a suite of Development Plan Documents. Within the South West region LDF’s need to respond to the direction of the South West Regional Assembly (the regional planning body) contained within the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS). North Dorset District Council (NDDC) and East Dorset District Council (EDDC), as the Local Planning Authority, will produce the LDF for their area. Dorset County Council, as the highway authority, is working closely with both NDDC and EDDC to provide a transportation evidence base to the LDF process.

Dorset County Council has commissioned Buro Happold to work in partnership with the County Council to produce a Transportation Evidence Report to support NDDC and EDDC in the Options Consultation. The Evidence Report will be informed by the following Background Papers:

• Policy Review;

• Existing Conditions;

• Transport Modelling.

Upon adoption of a Preferred Option, Buro Happold will produce a Transport Strategy to support the Option and a Delivery Strategy which will inform a Development Contributions Strategy. The structure of documents output from the study is illustrated in Figure 2—1.

This report sets out the Working Towards a Transport Strategy and is intended to describe the local demographics, travel patterns and structure of transport networks in the study area.

In broad terms, the Working Towards a Transport Strategy describes the predicted transport implications of the RSS housing allocation for North and north East Dorset and assesses the transport network requirements to accommodate this level of development in 2016 and 2026. The assignments of the housing allocations across the study area are made on the basis of estimates of the distribution and number of houses derived from both the RSS and Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, with the agreement of NDDC and EDDC. The suitability of some of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment sites for development has been assessed using an accessibility audit, the methodology for which is consistent with that of the Weymouth and Portland, and West Dorset Transport Studies.

Chapter 3 provides a brief overview of the existing Spatial Portrait for North Dorset, and the Corporate Strategy for East Dorset, the guidance contained in both documents is used to organise this transport study.

Chapter 4 describes the estimated housing allocations that have been used to model and test the network. It also identifi es the sites in Gillingham, Shaftesbury, Blandford Forum and Sturminster Newton, the suitability for development of which is tested using an accessibility audit.

Chapter 5 identifi es the key results. It describes the traffi c impact on key corridors of movement in the study area in both 2016 and 2026. In addition, the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment sites are ranked in terms of accessibility.

The Working Towards a Transport Strategy is set out in Chapters 6, 6.2 and 6.3. Chapter 6.2 outlines a series of general good practice measures that should be taken into account in the formation of spatial and transport planning for the study area. Chapter 6.3 describes specifi c measures that are designed to address the issues identifi ed for the three main corridors of movement in the study area.

Figure 3—1 shows the North and north East Dorset Transport study area. The boundary identifi ed corresponds with the administrative area of North Dorset and the northern, rural part of the East Dorset. The portion of East Dorset included in the study area does not include Wimborne Minster, Colehill, Corfe Mullen, Verwood, West Moors and Ferndown, all of which are covered by the South East Dorset Transport Study.

From a spatial planning perspective there are four main towns in the study area, namely Gillingham, Shaftesbury, Blandford Forum and Sturminster Newton. All these towns are in North Dorset. In East Dorset, the town of Wimborne Minster lies on the edge of the study area and is more similar in nature to South East Dorset than the north East Dorset.

There are several larger urban settlements lying outside the study area that exert an infl uence on North and north East Dorset. These are:

• Salisbury;

• Yeovil;

• Dorchester;

• Bournemouth/ Poole.

Transport infrastructure in the study area is limited to A, B and lower class roads, with the exception of a small amount of the A303 trunk road passing to the north of the study area, and sections of the A31 trunk road in the south of the study area. There is an extensive network of rural roads throughout North and north East Dorset consisting of lower class C roads.

Rail services can be accessed at Gillingham, with somewhat limited services running to London to the east and to Yeovil and beyond to the west. Residents of north East Dorset are required to travel to Poole or Salisbury to access the rail network for long distance trips to London and elsewhere. Public transport services are predominantly geared towards non-work travel and are provided as a mix of demand responsive and scheduled services. However, there are many areas where public transport is infrequent or completely absent.

Within the towns, walking and cycling are catered for but in the more rural areas there is often a complete absence, or a poor quality of footpaths and cycle routes.

3.1 The North Dorset Spatial Portrait

North Dorset District Council has set out a Spatial Portrait that describes the broad spatial distribution of the existing development patterns in North Dorset. It has been used to help structure the recommendations that are made in this report. The Spatial Portrait makes reference to three regionally important transport corridors. The A303 (Exeter to London), A31 (Weymouth to London) and the A350 (South East Dorset to Bristol), these are identifi ed in Figure 3—2. The latter corridor (which includes the C13 running parallel to A350) is not recognised as a regional transport corridor in the draft RSS post Examination in Public (EiP); however, it is extensively used for passenger and freight movements between the South East Dorset conurbation and the M4 Corridor. It is also recognised in the South West Regional Assembly’s report ‘Connectivity Problems, Challenges and Issues for the Region ‘ as a highway corridor which has a strategic function. Measures identifi ed within this strategy have been organised using these three main corridors.

The North Dorset Spatial Portrait emphasises that the existing distribution of settlements, and associated travel patterns in the north and south of the district signifi cantly diff er. Access to services in the northern part of the district, comprising Gillingham, Shaftesbury and Sturminster Newton are more aligned towards Yeovil. In contrast the southern part of the district has a functional relationship with the South East Dorset conurbation consisting of the urban areas of Poole and Bournemouth.

The key transport nodes and routes in North Dorset are identifi ed in Figure 3—3.

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 21 of 188 Figure 3-2 Regional transport corridors in North Dorset (extract from the Spatial Portrait)

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 22 of 188 Figure 3-3 Main transport routes and nodes in North Dorset (extract from the Spatial Portrait)

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 23 of 188 Figure 3-4 Containment index for Dorset towns (Bournemouth Borough Council, Dorset County Council and The Borough of Poole, 2005)

The South East Dorset Strategy (Bournemouth Borough Council, Dorset County Council and The Borough of Poole, 2005) was commissioned by the Regional Assembly to assist in the preparation of the draft RSS for the South West. It defi ned an ‘index of self-containment‘ to assess the containment of work trips and self suffi ciency of market towns in the joint study area. The self-containment index is ascertained by dividing the number of people of working age and in employment, defi ned by the 2001 National Census as those between the ages of 16-74, who live and work in each town by the total number of in-commuters and out-commuters. Figure 3—4 shows the containment index values for towns in Dorset, including Gillingham, Shaftesbury, Blandford Forum and Sturminster Newton.

An index value of less than one indicates that a settlement is more self-contained, that is, fewer people commute to and from the town than commute within it. An index of self-containment value greater than 4 demonstrates that the number of in and out commuters signifi cantly exceeds the number of people living and working in the town, therefore they are not considered to be self-contained.

Figure 3—4 shows that Sturminster Newton has the highest degree of self-containment of the four main towns in North Dorset with an index of approximately 2.2. Gillingham, Blandford Forum and Shaftesbury are slightly less self-contained with index values between 2.6 and 2.7. All four towns in North Dorset are signifi cantly more self-contained than the market towns identifi ed in East Dorset, including Corfe Mullen, Wimborne Minster and Three Legged Cross. The South East Dorset conurbation exerts a sizable infl uence on the area of East Dorset immediately to the south of the study area boundary.

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 25 of 188 Figure 3-5 Spatial Portrait map of highest ranking settlements in North Dorset in terms of population and facilities

The possible location of development identifi ed in Chapter 2 is informed by NDDC’s initial ranking of towns and villages using population and community facilities data. On this basis, Gillingham, Shaftesbury and Blandford Forum have been identifi ed as likely Development Policy B settlements as set out in the daft RSS (post EiP). Development Policy B concerns development at market and coastal towns, stating that “provision will be made for housing employment, shopping and other services that increase their self-containment and enhance their roles as service centres.” In addition, eighteen further smaller towns and villages described as ‘likely’ or ‘possible’ RSS Development Policy C settlements are identifi ed. Figure 3—5 shows the distribution of settlements where development could be located in North Dorset: Development Policy B settlements are coloured green.

3.4 East Dorset District Council Corporate Plan 2006-2009

Protecting the environment and reducing isolation are cited as main priorities of the East Dorset District Council Corporate Plan. The following guidance is provided in relation to selecting suitable sites for new residential and employment land uses:

• 90% of residential development to be within 5km of a major employment centre;

• 80% of residential development within 1.5km of a local first or primary school;

• 80% of residential development within 1.5km of a local centre offering general store facilities;

• 80% within 500m of open countryside or urban green space exceeding 1ha;

• 90% within 500m of a regular public transport link with a minimum of 3 services per weekday.

The fi rst target requiring 90% of residential development to be within 5km of a major development may be diffi cult to achieve in the rural villages that have been identifi ed as possible locations of growth. These are Cranborne and Sixpenny Handley. However, RSS Development Policy C recognises the need for new housing in some smaller rural settlements to promote the self suffi ciency of these communities.

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 27 of 188 Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 28 of 188 4 Proposed Development

4.1 Housing

The draft RSS (post EiP), allocates a total of 7,000 new houses to be developed in North Dorset District by 2026. In addition, the rural part of north East Dorset, excluding the possible urban extensions of Wimborne, Ferndown and Verwood, could receive 200 additional new homes.

Gillingham, Shaftesbury and Blandford Forum meet the criteria set out in Development Policy B, concerning “development at market and coastal towns” in the draft RSS (post EiP). Consequently, the majority (approximately 70%) of the RSS housing allocations could be concentrated in these settlements. The remaining 30% could be distributed in the District’s smaller towns and villages that meet the criteria set out in Development Policy C in the draft RSS (post EiP).

Provision could also be made for a small number of new homes in the dispersed hamlets or rural exceptions. On the basis of policy contained in the draft RSS (post EiP), sites that could be developed fall within three categories:

• Development Policy B locations;

• Development Policy C locations;

• The rural exceptions.

Table 4—1 shows the estimated distribution of new housing for North Dorset by ward. These estimates are based on the fi ndings of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment for North Dorset and consultation with NDDC. The distribution of Development Policy C settlements has been estimated on the basis of the size of population of existing villages. For example, Marnhull, one of the larger villages in North Dorset, could receive proportionally more new housing than a village half its size. The same methodology was used to estimate the distribution of housing in the rural exceptions.

The housing allocation for the rural part of north East Dorset included in this study (200 new homes) accounts for approximately 3% of the total RSS housing allocation for East Dorset (6400 new homes). A Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment for East Dorset is currently being undertaken. Therefore at the time of writing this report there was no information relating to specifi c sites capable of accommodating new houses, the only exception being at Alderholt, where planning permission has already been granted for 89 new homes. The remaining 111 homes could be located in the larger villages in north East Dorset namely Cranborne and Sixpenny Handley. The existing population size of each of these settlements has been used to determine the proportion of housing that each one could accommodate. The estimated distribution of housing in north East Dorset is shown in Table 4—2.

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 29 of 188 New HH 2006-2016 New HH 2016-2026 New HH 2006-2026 Development Policy B Blandford Forum 750 750 1500 Gillingham 800 1500 2300 Shaftesbury 850 350 1200 Development Policy C Abbey 78 77 155 Blackmore (Stalbridge) 100 100 200 Bourton and District 27 26 53 Bulbarrow 43 42 85 Cranborne Chase 34 34 68 Hill Forts 114 115 229 Lydden Vale 32 32 64 Marnhull 61 61 122 Motcombe and Ham 32 31 63 Riversdale 50 51 101 Stour Valley (Sturminster Newton) 350 150 500 The Beacon 15 16 31 The Stours 14 15 29 Rural Exceptions Abbey 14 17 31 Blackmore 8 9 17 Bourton and District 9 8 17 Bulbarrow 4 4 8 Cranborne Chase 9 8 17 Hill Forts 10 10 20 Lydden Vale 9 8 17 Portman 25 25 50 Stour Valley 4 4 8 The Beacon 16 15 31 The Lower Tarrants 30 30 60 The Stours 12 12 24 Total 3500 3500 7000

Table 4—1 Estimated housing distribution in North Dorset District

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 30 of 188 Village (Ward) New HH 2006-2016 New HH 2016-2026 New HH 2006-2026 Alderholt 122 33 155 Cranborne 9 9 18 Sixpenny Handley 14 14 27 Total North East Dorset (Rural Zone) 145 56 200

Table 4—2 Estimated housing distribution in north East Dorset District

4.2 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment Sites

The sites described in this section were identifi ed in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment for North Dorset. Sites in Gillingham, Shaftesbury, Blandford Forum and Sturminster Newton have been selected on the basis of consultation with NDDC. The quality of access of each site to existing amenities such as food shops, education, GP surgeries and employment opportunities has been tested by the accessibility audit. The results of the accessibility audit are discussed in Chapter 3.

Figure 4—1 identifi es some of the sites regarded as developable by the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment in Gillingham. Sites labelled GILL 6 and 7 have been identifi ed as being suitable for employment land uses only.

Figure 4—2 shows the sites in Shaftesbury. Site labelled SHAF 3 has been identifi ed as being suitable for employment land uses.

Sites in Blandford Forum are shown in Figure 4—3. Those labelled BLAN 3 and BLAN 8 are regarded as employment sites.

Figure 4—4 identifi es sites in Sturminster Newton. STUR 6 is an employment site.

4.3 Employment

The accessibility audit takes into account existing employment sites that are identifi ed by the North Dorset District-Wide Local Plan.

The Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Workspace Strategy and Delivery Plan, published in October 2008, suggests that North Dorset District does not need to allocate any further employment land in the district for the coming strategy period. On this basis, it is assumed that there will be no major new sites of employment during the period of the RSS. Therefore, the directional proportions of commuting trips are assumed to remain consistent between the present day and 2026.

4.4 External Growth

Housing growth in neighbouring districts outside the study area has been estimated for the purposes of the traffi c modelling, the results of which are described later.

TEMPRO, a computer program published by the Department for Transport provides access to the Department for Transport’s national Trip End Model projections of growth in travel demand and the underlying car ownership and planning data projections. TEMPRO has been specifi cally developed to provide suitable growth factors for input to transport models. The growth factors referred to are calculated on the basis of the predicted number of households and jobs in future years. TEMPRO, by default, makes these assumptions taking account of the development recommendations in the draft RSS.

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 39 of 188 Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 40 of 188 5 Results

5.1 Introduction

This chapter identifi es the key impacts of housing development on the main road corridors by presenting the results of a traffi c modelling exercise. At an early stage in this process it was recognised by the stakeholder group that the rural nature of the road network in Dorset means that it is important to understand the impact of development on the highway links. To achieve this, a ‘coarse’ traffi c model has been developed using the SATURN traffi c modelling program. A more detailed explanation of the traffi c modelling supporting the study is presented in the Transport Modelling Report. The model’s sole purpose is to inform this report and provide a comparison of the traffi c fl ow on roads in and around the study area for the various scenarios. The traffi c model does not consider the impact of the additional traffi c fl ow on individual junctions (it is therefore only a ‘buff er’ network model).

The results of the accessibility audit undertaken for each town are presented in this chapter.

Defi nitions of the important concepts used to analyse the impact of development are explained in the following sections.

5.2 Estimated Technical Capacity

The main road corridors accommodating the highest volumes of traffi c movement have been identifi ed. The technical capacity of each corridor is estimated using the methodology for calculating capacity according to the Design Manual for Road and Bridges (TA 46/97). According to this guidance, capacity is defi ned as the maximum sustainable hourly lane throughput.

Characteristics such as topography, bendiness and road width will vary along the length of a road; therefore, so too does capacity. In recognition of this, the capacity of each corridor at the highest and lowest quality section of road has been estimated. For example, the road quality of the C13 is regarded to be lower at Melbury Abbas than other sections of the same road, due to reduced width, increased bendiness and a steep gradient. Therefore, it has been assumed that an estimated lower capacity should be applied to take account of ‘pinch points.’ The maximum and minimum capacity of each corridor has been agreed following consultation with Dorset County Council and is shown in Table 5—1. It is emphasised that the impact of development has been assessed on the key links of the local road network, these are the roads that have been identifi ed as carrying the highest volume of traffi c. The increased travel demand created by development will have an impact on the whole road network, including the extensive network of rural roads.

Maximum Maximum Maximum hourly lane Maximum hourly lane Average hourly lane throughput hourly lane throughput Corridor Route carriageway Bendiness Hilliness Width throughput on link - throughput at pinch point width (m) at pinch accounting on link - accounting point for % of for % of HGVs HGVs

A350 Corridor

Shaftesbury A350 5.8 1380 0.2 0.1 0.2 690 1296 606 - Blandford Forum

Shaftesbury C13 5.5 1380 0.2 0.2 0.2 552 1296 468 - Blandford Forum

Blandford A350 6.5 1380 0.1 0 0.1 1104 1296 1020 Forum - Poole

Blandford B3082 6.5 1380 0.1 0 0 1242 1296 1158 Forum - Wimborne Minster

Blandford A357 5.9 1380 0.1 0 0.2 1104 1296 882 Forum - A303

Lydlinch - A3030 6.4 1380 0.2 0 0.2 828 1296 744 Sherborne

A303 Corridor

Gillingham - B3081 5.9 1380 0.1 0.2 0.1 828 1296 744 Shaftesbury

Gillingham - B3081 5.9 1380 0.1 0 0.1 1104 1296 1020 Wincanton

Gillingham - B3092 5.8 1380 0.2 0 0.1 966 1296 882 Mere

Shaftesbury A30 6.7 1380 0.1 0 0 1242 1296 1158 - Sherborne

Shaftesbury A30 6.7 1380 0 0 0.1 1242 1296 1158 - Salisbury

Maximum Maximum hourly lane Maximum hourly lane Maximum throughput Average hourly lane throughput hourly lane at pinch Corridor Route carriageway Bendiness Hilliness Width throughput on link - throughput point - width (m) at pinch accounting on link accounting point for % of for % of HGVs HGVs

Bere Regis - A31 6.7 1380 0 0 0 1380 1296 1020 Wimborne

Blandford A354 6.7 1380 0.1 0.2 0 966 1268 882 Forum - Dorchester

Blandford A35 14.6 2100 0 0 0 2100 1988 1988 Forum - (dual) Dorchester

Blandford A35 7.3 1380 0 0 0 1380 1296 1296 Forum - (Single) Dorchester

Table 5—1 Estimated capacity of road links in North and north East Dorset

Sixpenny Handley is an attractive village located in the picturesque countryside of the Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, in East Dorset. The population of the parish of Sixpenny Handley is 1,160 residents inhabiting 536 households.

The B3081 runs directly through the centre of the village linking to the A354 approximately one mile southeast of the village. Shaftesbury is located 11 miles northwest and Salisbury 14 miles northeast of Sixpenny Handley. The village benefi ts from a thriving and proactive local community which in 2007 published the Sixpenny Handley with Pentridge Parish Plan entitled ‘our villages today and our hopes for the future.’ The parish plan presents the views and ideas of local residents concerning the future of the village. The following transport issues are identifi ed in their action plan:

Issue Problem No pavement on High Street Road Safety Speed of vehicles Parking Shortage of parking at school, village hall and on the High Street Public Transport Reduced bus services between the village and Salisbury Bus Shelter Facilities Lack of covered waiting facilities HGVs using the High HGVs causing congestion on the High Street Street Youth Transport No access to facilities for youths Congestion Movement of HGVs on the High Street

Table 5—2 Sixpenny Handley Parish Plan problems

The width of the High Street varies between 6.5 and 6 metres, with parked vehicles reducing the usable carriageway width further at some locations. These dimensions make accommodating two way traffi c and pavements along the High Street problematic. The Parish Plan identifi es a particular problem relating to congestion on the High Street caused by the movement of HGVs. It looks at measures to address the problem by selectively widening Back Lane and Red Lane running with the High Street enabling HGVs to bypass the centre of the village. The diffi culties associated with securing the necessary funding for infrastructure schemes of this nature given the low scale of RSS allocated new development in north East Dorset requires other smaller scale and more aff ordable solutions to be assessed. A possible alternative to widening Back Lane may be to install variable message signs to inform drivers of oncoming HGVs. In addition new signage would be required to direct HGVs not to use the High Street. A similar approach has been adopted at Melbury Abbas where the alignment and width of the road creates diffi culties for two passing HGVs.

The Parish Plan identifi es the speed of traffi c using the High Street as a problem. A speed survey was undertaken in August 2006 on the High Street using a speed indicator device (SID). It found that the 85th percentile speed (the speed at which 85% of the vehicles recorded do not exceed) was 41mph. Since this survey was completed the speed restriction on the High Street has been reduced from 30mph to 20mph.

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 44 of 188 Much of the parking provision in the village is informal and on street, particularly along the High Street. The unavailability of parking is considered to be a particular problem at Sixpenny Handley First School, on Common Road. The Parish Plan describes a scheme to provide an additional drop-off and staff parking area at the school. The school currently has a draft Travel Plan and is introducing measures to reduce journeys made by car to the site.

Table 5—3 shows the existing bus services that stop at Sixpenny Handley. The number 184 to Salisbury is the only service that local commuters can use for commuting purposes. It is the only service that operates before 09:00 and returning from Salisbury at 17:45. Connections to Shaftesbury and Gillingham are much less frequent and there is a lack of late evening bus services.

Bus Destination Outward Return Services service Notes /day Earliest Latest Earliest Latest 38 Bournemouth 1007 - 1345 1500 1 Fri only 38 Gillingham, via 1443 1558 - - 2 Fri only Shaftesbury 184 Blandford Forum 0909 1734 1014 1822 7 Mon - Sat 184 Weymouth 0909 1309 1110 1520 5 Mon - Sat term time 184 Salisbury 0742 1659 0840 1745 8 Mon - Sat

Table 5—3 Sixpenny Handley existing bus services (Dorset County Council, 2008b)

The results of the transport modelling are presented in sections 5.5 to 5.7 of this report.

Figure 5—1 to Figure 5—9 show the results of the traffi c modelling as bar charts. The modelled largest single directional fl ow for the 2008, 2016 and 2026 AM and PM peak hours is shown for each road identifi ed along the bottom of the chart. Additionally, the estimated ratio of fl ow to link capacity is given and the estimated ratio of fl ow to pinch-point capacity is given for each link. The ‘pinch-point’ capacity refers to a point along the road at which it is estimated that the capacity is lowest due to poor topography, visibility, width and/ or bendiness characteristics. The ratio of fl ow to capacity measurements show how likely congestion will be on the roads by indicating how much of the physical capacity (number of vehicles/ hour) is taken up by the predicted traffi c fl ow. Thus, anything over 100% demonstrates that the road is unable to cope with the level of traffi c on it; it is reasonable to assume that anything above 85% is demonstrating that the road is under pressure.

5.5 A350 Corridor

Figure 5—1 shows the results of the traffi c modelling for the A350 corridor. The ratio of fl ow to capacity results are shown in Figure 5—2 and Figure 5—3.

From the results shown in Figure 5—3, the routes that are closest to their design capacity at pinch points by 2026 are the C13, the A350 between Blandford Forum and Poole and the A357 and A3030 between Blandford Forum and Sherborne.

All the roads are predicted to remain within their link capacity during the study period, although localised congestion will become a problem at pinch points on those routes with a ratio of fl ow to capacity nearing 80%. This occurs particularly during the AM peak hour.

Figure 5—4 shows the results of the traffi c modelling for the A31 corridor. The ratio of fl ow to capacity results are shown in Figure 5—5 and Figure 5—6.

The results shown in Figure 5—5 and Figure 5—6, demonstrate that both the A31 between Bere Regis and Wimborne Minster, and the A35 between Puddletown and Dorchester currently operate close to design capacity in the AM and PM peak periods. Furthermore, the design capacity of both of these links will be exceeded by 2016, due to RSS development. The narrow width and poor vertical and horizontal alignment of this section of the A31 restricts its design capacity. This causes localised congestion and unreliable journey times in the peak periods. The A31, A354 and A35 converge east of Dorchester. The single carriageway section of the A35 beginning just outside Dorchester at Cuckoo Lane already becomes congested in the AM and PM peak periods. The traffi c modelling predicts that these sections of the A31 and A35 will remain busy throughout the future years and there may be serious congestion by 2026.

Figure 5—7 shows the results of the traffi c modelling for the A31 corridor. The ratio of fl ow to capacity results are shown in Figure 5—8 and Figure 5—9.

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 56 of 188 The results shown in Figure 5—8 and Figure 5—9 demonstrate that for all future years, traffi c fl ows will remain within the link capacity on all the roads in the corridor, although the B3081 from Gillingham to Shaftesbury may suff er from occasional localised congestion by 2026.

The results of the modelling indicate that the RSS housing allocation for North and north East Dorset will increase traffi c fl ows on all corridors. Increased traffi c will also occur on the rural road network, as vehicles gain access to the main routes identifi ed.

None of the links on the A350 corridor will exceed technical capacity during the period of the RSS. However, the impact of increased levels of traffi c moving through settlements may have a less easily quantifi ed impact on the environment and communities living on some routes, most notably the A350 and C13. The application of a framework to quantify the environmental capacity of these routes is needed to accurately assess the impact of traffi c growth caused by RSS growth.

The modelling results show that there will be a signifi cant increase of traffi c using the C13 between Shaftesbury and Blandford Forum, and the A357 and A3030 corridor between Blandford Forum and Sherborne, in West Dorset. Localised congestion may become a problem, particularly during the AM peak hour, on these routes by 2026 as the ratio of fl ow to capacity at pinch points nears 80%.

Results for the A303 corridor indicate that the B3081 between Gillingham and Shaftesbury will operate near to capacity by 2026 in both the AM and PM peak hours. The A303 will be subject to additional pressure as a result of strategic traffi c movements outside of the study area combined with the eff ects of growth in the study area itself. The A303 is identifi ed by the Highways Agency as also being under signifi cant ‘stress’ up to 2026.

The results for the A31/ A35 corridor indicate that the A31 between Bere Regis and Wimborne Minster, and the A35 between Puddletown and Dorchester are already operating near to capacity in the AM and PM peak hours. It is predicated that the capacity of these links will be exceeded by traffi c generated by RRS development by 2016.

5.8 Case Study: Shillingstone

The village of Shillingstone, approximately 5 miles north west of Blandford Forum, has a population of 1,130 residents occupying 475 dwellings. The A357 intersects the centre of Shillingstone, running directly passed Shillingstone Primary School. The A357 is used by passenger and freight traffi c as a route between Yeovil and the A303 to the north and the South East Dorset Conurbation.

The Shillingstone Parish Plan (2006) identifi es the main transport issues of concern to local residents.

Issue Problem Road Safety Lack of, or inadequate width of pavements Traffi c Volume of HGV traffi c Public Transport Lack of suitable service for people without cars, especially youths

Table 5—4 Shillingstone Parish Plan problems

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 59 of 188 The Parish Plan suggests that residents are particularly concerned about road safety in the areas outside Shillingstone Primary School, The Cross and the village shop. At present, there is no pavement on the north side of the A357 directly outside Shillingstone School. The narrow width of footpaths combined with on street parking immediately next to the school also aff ects the movement of pedestrians.

The A357 is identifi ed as a local freight route by the Lorry Route Map for Dorset (Dorset County Council, 2004). The Parish Plan indicates that the volume of HGVs using this route is a particularly signifi cant concern to local residents. Some of the actions identifi ed in the Parish Plan include:

• encouraging Dorset County Council to consider placing signage south of Blandford Forum and north of Stalbridge to direct HGV traffic away from the A357 and the A350;

• encouraging Dorset County Council to place a weight restriction on Durweston Bridge to the east of the village;

• encourage haulage companies to use the route outside peak school travel times.

There is a concern over the lack of alternative transport for those who do not have a car, particularly young people. In addition, the Parish Plan identifi es a need for improved public transport timetable information and waiting facilities. The latest timetable for bus services stopping at Shillingstone Post Offi ce is shown in the table below.

Bus Outbound Return Services Destination Notes service Earliest Latest Earliest Latest /day 7 Poole/ Bournemouth 10.20 - 13.45 15.40 1 Mon only 7 Yeovil 14.20 16.55 - - 2 Mon only 40 Dorchester 9.55 - 13:45 - 1 Wed only 40 Gillingham 14.35 - - - 1 Wed only 309 Sturminster Newton/ 7.37 13.52 9.10 17.45 6 Mon - Fri Gillingham/ Shaftesbury 309 Blandford Forum 10.21 13.21 11.40 13.40 6 Mon - Fri 310 Sturminster Newton 7.37 18.06 7.53 18.25 9 Mon - Fri 310 Blandford Forum 8.18 17.35 10.00 17.55 9 Mon - Fri 317 Blandford Forum 10.35 - 13.05 - 1 Thu only 317 Stalbridge 13.23 - - - 1 Thu only 330 Yeovil/ Sherborne 9.32 - 13.35 14.05 1 Fri only 330 Poole/ Bournemouth 14.56 15.26 - - 2 Fri only 368 Poole 9.31 14.54 10.18 16.18 3 Yeovil College term time, Mon - Fri 368 Yeovil (College) 7.15 15.47 17.05 - 2 Yeovil College term time, Mon - Fri

Table 5—5 Shillingstone existing bus services (Dorset County Council, 2008b)

The level of access to key amenities at each of the identifi ed Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment sites has been assessed and the results are presented below. The audit focuses on accessibility to existing amenities for pedestrians as PPG13 states that walking off ers the greatest potential to replace short car trips, particularly under 2km. The accessibility audit assumes that there will only be residential development on the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment sites identifi ed. However, it is acknowledged that the population of some of the sites may be large enough to justify the provision of new services. The assessment primarily uses the criteria set out in the South West’s adopted Regional Planning Policy 10 (RPG10). Distance from each site to the nearest food shop, primary school, GP surgery and employment opportunity has been measured and is used to rank the accessibility of each site to vital services. The frequency at which diff erent types of trips are made is taken into account by weighting diff erent trip purposes. The highest weight is applied to the most frequently made trip purposes, namely employment and food shopping.

5.10 Regional Planning Guidance 10 Accessibility Assessment

Regional Planning Guidance 10 includes a statement on accessibility criteria for the proximity of development to key destinations such as shopping, education and public transport networks. The draft RSS (post EiP) does not include accessibility criteria and therefore for the purposes of the accessibility assessment Regional Planning Guidance 10 guidelines have been used.

Residential and employment sites identifi ed by the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment that are considered in this assessment are shown in Table 5—6.

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 61 of 188 Site number Phase Residential (dwellings) Employment (hectares) Blandford Forum BLAN 1 2 (post 2016) 140 None BLAN 2 2 (post 2016) 400 None BLAN 3 1 (pre 2016) 0 6.0 ha B1/B2/B8 BLAN 4 1 (pre 2016) 240 None BLAN 5 2 (post 2016) 500 None BLAN 6 1 (pre 2016) 150 None BLAN 7 2 (post 2016) 200 None BLAN 8 1 (pre 2016) 200 6.0 ha B1/B2/B8 BLAN 9 2 (post 2016) 150 None BLAN 10 2 (post 2016) 360 None Gillingham GILL 1 2 (post 2016) 450 None GILL 2 2 (post 2016) 500 None GILL 3 2 (post 2016) 1000 None GILL 4 2 (post 2016) 500 None GILL 5 1 (pre 2016) 200 None GILL 6 1 (pre 2016) 0 11.0 ha B1/B2/B8 GILL 7 1 (pre 2016) 150 6.0 ha A1/B1/D1/D2 GILL 8 1 (pre 2016) 50 None GILL 9 2 (post 2016) 1150 None Shaftesbury SHAF 1 1 (pre 2016) 700 None SHAF 2 2 (post 2016) 300 None SHAF 3 1 (pre 2016) 0 6.3 ha B1/B2/B8 SHAF 4 2 (post 2016) 150 None Sturminster Newton STUR 1 2 (post 2016) 100 None STUR 2 2 (post 2016) 100 None STUR 3 1 (pre 2016) 130 None STUR 4 1 (pre 2016) 120 None STUR 5 2 (post 2016) 50 None STUR 6 1 (pre 2016) 0 4.0 ha B1/B2/B8 uses

Table 5—6 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment sites

To comply with RPG 10, housing sites should meet the accessibility criteria shown in Table 5—7.

Service Target Distance (m) Maximum Distance (m) Food shop 300 600 Primary School 300 600 Bus Stop 200 400 Railway Station - 800

Table 5—7 Desirable maximum walking distances to services (source Regional Planning Guidance 10)

The target distance shown in Table 5—7 is the maximum desirable distance that people should be expected to walk to access amenities in Principal Urban Areas (as defi ned by Regional Planning Guidance 10), and other signifi cant towns, this is included for reference only and does not apply to the market towns in North Dorset and north East Dorset. The stated maximum distances should therefore be applied in the accessibility audit, as these are intended for use outside of Principal Urban Areas and other signifi cant towns.

Regional Planning Guidance 10 states that the maximum walking distance to services is aff ected by steep gradients. Furthermore, all walking routes must be safe, therefore provided with footway and crossing facilities where necessary and lit at night. Furthermore footpaths should be designed to ensure natural surveillance by adjacent property. These factors have been taken into account whilst selecting suitable routes for the accessibility audit.

Table 5—8 shows how compatible each of the possible residential sites in Gillingham is with the Regional Planning Guidance 10 criteria. The cells coloured green and orange comply with target and maximum distances respectively. Red cells demonstrate that the distance between the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment site and the nearest appropriate amenity is greater than the maximum distance identifi ed by Regional Planning Guidance 10.

5.12 Weighted Assessment

The primary assessment does not consider the frequency of diff erent types of trips. The accessibility of each site was measured solely on the basis of its proximity to diff erent services. The following assessment applies a weighting which is dependent on how often people travel to a particular service. Access to the following services is tested:

• employment;

• food shops;

• primary schools;

• GP surgeries.

5.13 Limitations of the Methodology

The assessment only takes account of distance and does not make a distinction between levels of service. For example, a small local grocery store is regarded to off er the same level of service as a supermarket. It does not consider topography, yet a steep gradient will aff ect an individual’s choice of walking route. Furthermore, only the existing major employment centres (including industrial estates and the four main town centres) have been tested.

5.14 Assessment Methodology

A site’s accessibility to a service was assumed to be based on the walking distance from the site to that service, the shorter the walk the more accessible the service. By comparing the accessibility of each site to each service, the sites can be ranked for overall accessibility.

As some services are travelled to more frequently than others, it does not make sense to give them equal importance when ranking them. Accordingly, a weighting factor has been used to account for this. The following methodology has been adopted.

Call the distance from a site to the nearest employment centre and the weight applied to employment , the distance from a site to the nearest food store and the weight applied to food shopping etc. The measure of the sites overall accessibility is the sum of the weighted distances to each of the individual services, .

The sites are then ranked according to this accessibility fi gure, the lower the fi gure the more accessible the site.

The weights used are based on the expected number of trips (per person per year) to each service. These fi gures are taken from the Regional Transport Statistics (Department for Transport, 2008) and are based on surveys carried out in 2005-2006. The Regional Transport Statistics do not split shopping trips between food and non-food; it is therefore assumed here that food shopping accounts for half of shopping trips.

Food Employment, Education, GP Shopping 149 112 58 8

Table 5—12 Weights for accessibility (trips per person per year) (Department for Transport, 2008)

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 66 of 188 The fi gure of eight GP visits per person per year has been assumed in the absence of actual data.

5.15 Results

The results of the weighted accessibility testing of development sites are presented below for each town.

5.16 Gillingham

The results of the weighted accessibility assessment for sites in Gillingham are presented in Table 5—13.

The results indicate that site 7 is well situated with regard to its proximity to services. Its central location provides good accessibility to the Town Centre, Station Industrial Estate and Gillingham railway station, all of which are within walking distance. Table 5—6 indicates that site 7 could be used for mixed use development, accommodating 150 new homes and 6 hectares of employment land uses. Furthermore, it is regarded as being developable before 2016. The mixed use, dense development that could be provided on this site would enable new residents to both live and work locally. Moreover, it would provide additional employment on a site that already benefi ts from good quality access by public transport.

Sites 4 and 5 are identifi ed as the next most accessible sites, both being well situated in relation to existing employment opportunities, notably the Brickfi eld Industrial Estate and Gillbury Yard. In addition, depending on where the access from the two sites is taken, both may also be within walking distance of Gillingham railway station. Table 5—6 demonstrates that there is an opportunity to develop 200 homes at site 5 by 2016, with a possible further 500 being developed on the site by 2026. The only further site that is regarded as developable before 2016 is site 8 on which 50 new houses could be accommodated. The traffi c modelling has assumed 800 of the 2300 homes (approximately 35%) could be developed by 2016 (see Table 5—6). However, in the absence of further developable sites this fi gure could be lower.

The least accessible site with regard to proximity to existing services is site 1. The nearest employment site is assumed to be Tomlins Lane, approximately 1.2km south west of site 1. Furthermore, this is only a small workshop area occupying 0.25 hectares. The next closest employment site is the Town Centre approximately 1.5km to the south of the site.

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 67 of 188 Sites 2 and 9 are also signifi cantly less accessible according to the weighted assessment than other sites. This is accounted for by their distance to the nearest employment sites. The majority of employment opportunities are located south of the railway line; therefore sites located on the northern periphery are less accessible on foot to them. The extended distance between sites 1, 2 and 9 and the nearest employment opportunities may aff ect the resident’s choice of method of travel to work. Measures to improve cycling and public transport facilities in the northern part of the town should be considered.

Site Rank Score 7 1 67.5 4 2 181.1 5 2 227.7 3 4 249.4 8 5 270.7 2 6 279.3 9 7 348.9 1 8 413.5

Table 5—13 Weighted accessibility assessment for residential sites in Gillingham

The accessibility of each of the employment development sites is assessed in the same way as the residential development sites, i.e. based on the walking distances from sites to services. For employment sites it is accessibility of public transport that is most important. The sites are therefore ranked according to the accessibility of:

• bus stops;

• railway stations.

These services are assumed to be of equal importance so no weighting is applied.

Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment sites 6 and 7 in Gillingham are for employment land uses, the latter could also accommodate a further 150 residential dwellings. Table 5—14 shows that both sites are situated in close proximity to existing bus stops, and within 500 to 600 metres of Gillingham train station.

Site Distance to Railway Station (km) Rank GILL7 0.5 1 GILL 6 0.6 2 Site Distance to Bus Stop (km) Rank GILL 6 0.1 1 GILL7 0.3 2

Table 5—14 Accessibility of railway stations and bus services

5.17 Shaftesbury

Table 5—15 shows the result of the weighted accessibility assessment for sites in Shaftesbury. Site 2 is considered to the most accessible. Assuming that access for the site is taken from Wincombe Lane, Longmead Industrial estate is the nearest centre of employment. Site 2 also benefi ts from the potential for good access to Shaftesbury Primary School. Table 5—6 indicates that site 2 is not developable until after 2016 and could accommodate 300 new homes.

The summed total of weighted distances to services is similar for both site 1 and 4. They are both relatively near to employment sites, namely CB Morgan Limited and the Wincombe Business Park. The Longmead Industrial Estate is the nearest centre of employment to site 1 approximately 0.8km to the west. Table 5—6 indicates that prior to 2016, site 1 could accommodate up to 700 new homes; this is the largest Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment site in Shaftesbury. It is therefore important that it is well connected by walking, cycling and public transport facilities to vital services and local employment opportunities.

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 69 of 188 Site 4 is considered to be the least accessible site in Shaftesbury. This is accounted for by the absence of a nearby primary school within walking distance. Further, it should be noted that children living on site 4 would be required to cross the A350 to get to the nearest school.

Site Rank Score 2 1 117.1 1 2 194.6 4 3 199.3

Table 5—15 Weighted accessibility assessment for residential sites in Shaftesbury

5.17.1 Shaftesbury Employment Site

Site 3 is identifi ed as being suitable for employment land uses by the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. It is located 200m to the nearest bus stop, outside the Half Moon Inn. Measures to improve connectivity between site 3 and this bus stop are identifi ed in Chapter 7.

5.18 Blandford Forum

Table 5—16 ranks sites in Blandford Forum in order of accessibility. Site 8 is identifi ed as being the most accessible. This is accounted for by the fact that it could be used for mixed development. According to Table 5—6, the site may accommodate 200 new homes and provide 11 hectares of employment land uses. The mixed nature of development could enable residents to easily commute on foot to nearby jobs. Site 8 is also well situated for access to primary education - it is approximately 0.6km from Blandford Forum St Mary C of E First School.

Site 5 is identifi ed as being the least accessible to services; this is largely accounted for by the distance of the site to the nearest employment centre. It is situated approximately 1.4km to the Town Centre. Sites 1 and 2 also demonstrate relatively low accessibility to existing services when compared to other sites. This is accounted for by the distance of both sites to the nearest primary school that was identifi ed as Milldown C of E First School.

Site Rank Score 8 1 82.2 7 2 149.7 10 3 156.9 9 4 179.1 4 5 245.8 6 6 320.3 1 7 321.0 2 7 321.0

Table 5—16 Weighted accessibility assessment for residential sites in Blandford Forum

5.18.1 Blandford Forum Employment Sites

Sites 3 and 8 are identifi ed as being suitable locations for employment land uses by the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. Table 5—17 shows that site 3 is located 600m from the nearest bus stop on Salisbury Road. There is a bus stop located directly at the access to site 8.

Site Distance to Bus Stop (km) Rank BLA 8 0.0 1 BLA 3 0.6 2

Table 5—17 Accessibility of bus services

5.19 Sturminster Newton

Table 5—18 shows that site 4 is the most accessible of the residential sites in Sturminster Newton. It is the nearest site to William Barnes Primary School (approximately 0.5km), and has good access to the other key services. It is emphasised that the land to the north of site 4 has now been developed, incorporating improved facilities for pedestrians and users of public transport. It is assumed that access to site 4 is taken from Station Road, whilst site 5 is accessed via Friars Moor. This explains why the accessibility score for site 5 is considerably higher than for site 4.

Site 1 is identifi ed as the least accessible site. This is largely accounted for by its location in relation to the nearest primary school and food shop.

Site Rank Score 4 1 61.8 5 2 163.2 3 3 164.6 2 4 297.1 1 5 340.3

Table 5—18 Weighted accessibility assessment for residential sites in Sturminster Newton

5.19.1 Sturminster Newton Employment Site

Site 6 is identifi ed by the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment study as being suitable for employment land uses. It is located approximately 500m from the nearest existing bus stop.

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 71 of 188 Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 72 of 188 6 Strategy

6.1 Introduction

The North and north East Dorset Transport strategy identifi es a series of measures that ensure the local transport infrastructure is able to accommodate the level of development specifi ed by the RSS for the study area The measures needed to mitigate the transport issues created by RSS growth are identifi ed in the strategy set out below which is organised according to the three main corridors identifi ed by the North Dorset Spatial Portrait (NDDC, 2008) namely:

• A350 corridor (Bristol to the South East Dorset Conurbation);

• A303 corridor (Exeter to London);

• A31 corridor (Weymouth to London).

For each of these corridors the North Dorset Spatial Portrait defi nes a series of sub-regional and local objectives these are presented below:

1) to make the A303, the A30 and the Exeter to London railway line more eff ective in providing a connection between the north of the District and the neighbouring settlements identifi ed as strategically signifi cant by the RSS (i.e. Yeovil and Salisbury), and more distant major destinations such as London, Taunton and Exeter;

2) to make the A31 and A35 more eff ective in providing private and public transport connections to neighbouring strategically signifi cant settlements as defi ned by the RSS including South East Dorset, Dorchester and Weymouth, and more distant major destinations such as London and Exeter;

3) to defi ne the role of the South East Dorset to Bristol corridor in meeting, regional transport needs and to develop a wider sub-regional approach to mapping the long distance north/south movements between the two;

4) to make the A350/ C13 route more eff ective in providing private and public transport links from locations within North Dorset to South East Dorset, Bristol and the M4.

The draft RSS post EiP Policy RTS1 recognises the Exeter to London, and Weymouth to London corridors as being of regional importance. Accordingly measures are required on these corridors to improve the reliability and resilience of journey times, to facilitate a mode shift, and to support the growth of Strategically Signifi cant settlements identifi ed by the draft RSS. The A350 is not recognised as a regionally important corridor by the draft RSS post EiP. Yet it is the primary north to south corridor through North Dorset and provides a connection with the South East Dorset conurbation and the M4 corridor. In recognition of this, the main problems aff ecting movement on this corridor, and measures to address Sub-Regional Objective 4 are identifi ed in the following strategy.

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 73 of 188 To achieve the sub-regional objectives the North Dorset Spatial Portrait identifi es a series of local District level objectives, these are:

1) to provide more eff ective private and public transport links between the main towns within the district and to nearby Strategically Signifi cant settlements identifi ed by the draft RSS;

2) to ensure that the major and minor transport nodes within the District have the capacity, or can be improved to cope with through movements and movements between the main towns in the District;

3) at the main towns, to ensure that local transport networks have the capacity or can be improved, to accommodate the proposed levels of growth;

4) to improve transport links, particularly public transport links between the Districts main towns and the villages in their surrounding hinterlands.

The strategic priorities for north East Dorset are also considered. The draft Transport Key Issues paper, produced by East Dorset District Council and Christchurch Borough Council, highlights a number of key questions and relevant issues which aff ect the rural area of East Dorset. These are presented below:

1) how can accessibility be improved to give people a realistic alternative to the car? Residents rely on cars for access as travel choices are limited in the rural areas. Bus services are infrequent in the rural area and cycling and walking within and between the smaller settlements are not normally considered a choice due to concerns over traffi c volumes, speed and distance;

2) how can road safety be improved for all road users? Cycling and walking within and between the smaller settlements are not normally considered a choice due to concerns over traffi c volumes, speed and distance;

3) how can connectivity be enhanced so that economic prosperity can be improved? Poor connectivity has a negative impact on the economy of the area. Despite of the regional importance of Bournemouth and Poole there are few links in and out of the region. The A31 together with the Weymouth-Waterloo railway line forms the east-west link. The links to the north and south of the A31 into Bournemouth and Poole are poor. The A31 east of Wimborne suff ers from congestion, in particular between Ringwood and Merley and this extends well beyond the morning and evening peak periods. The A350 is used as a regional route to the north but this is not recognised in the RSS;

4) how can we ensure adequate levels of car parking are provided? The quantity of car parking (if too high) and the charges set (if too low) can encourage use of the car over other forms of transport. It is important that town centre car parks are reviewed to monitor their use.

The measures identifi ed by the strategy are compatible with these local objectives. A summary of the main issues identifi ed throughout the development of the strategy and accompanying recommendations are presented below:

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 74 of 188 Objective 1: To make the A350/ C13 route more eff ective in providing private and public transport links from locations within North Dorset to South East Dorset, Bristol and the M4.

Ref Issue Recommendation a Minimise impact of traffi c generated by development at Gillingham, Shaftesbury 1 to 12, 13 to 19 and Blandford Forum on the A350 b Movements of HGVs on A350 and surrounding rural road network frequently causes 6 localised obstructions and congestion c Lack of Regional Funding Allocation (RFA) support for major highway schemes in 13 District d Bus improvements required to encourage commuter trips between Sturminster 14 Newton, Blandford Forum and Poole e Bus improvements required to encourage commuter trips between Blandford 15 Forum, Sturminster Marshall and Wimborne Minster f Number 184 service inconvenient for commuters in villages such as Sixpenny 16 Handley to use for commuting to Blandford Forum and Salisbury g Coverage of demand responsive transport services 17 h Pedestrian and cycle improvements required to better connect existing and new 18 development 19

Table 6—1 Summary of issues and recommendations relating to the A350 corridor

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 75 of 188 Objective 2: To make the A303, the A30 and the Exeter to London railway line more eff ective in providing a connection between the north of the district and neighbouring Strategically Signifi cant settlements as defi ned by the draft RSS (i.e. Yeovil and Salisbury), and more distant major destinations such as London, Taunton and Exeter.

Issue Ref Issue Recommendation a Highways Agency require there 1 to 12, 20 to 27 to be nil-detriment* to the SRN as a result of RSS development b Highway capacity on 20 B3081 restricting growth of Gillingham and Shaftesbury 21 c Insuffi cient early morning 22 and late evening bus services between Shaftesbury and Gillingham d Insuffi cient early morning 23 and late evening bus services between Gillingham and Salisbury e Simplifi cation of ticketing 24 system for bus and rail services f Access from Yeovil Junction 25 Station to Yeovil town centre inconvenient g Pedestrian and cycle 26 improvements required to better connect existing and new development h Improve interchange facilities 27 at Gillingham Station

Table 6—2 Summary of the issues and recommendations relating to the A303 corridor

*Nil-detriment requires any impact to the trunk road network to be off set by other measures.

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 76 of 188 To make the A31 and A35 more eff ective in providing private and public transport connections to neighbouring strategically signifi cant settlements identifi ed by the RSS, including South East Dorset, Dorchester and Weymouth, and more distant major destinations such as London and Exeter.

Ref Issue Recommendation a The Highways Agency require there to be 1 to 12, 28 to 32 nil-detriment to the SRN as a result of RSS development b Capacity of A31 between Bere Regis and 28 Wimborne, and at Dorchester restrictive cTraffi c diverting onto local road network to avoid 29 congestion on the A31 d Insuffi cient early morning and late evening bus 30 services between Blandford Forum and Dorchester e Insuffi cient early morning and late evening 31 bus services between Blandford Forum and Bournemouth f Bus improvements required to encourage 32 commuter trips between Blandford Forum and Wimborne Minster

Table 6—3 Summary of the issues and recommendations relating to the A31/A35 corridor

The key recommendations for each section are summarised in a colour coded box. The following themes are used to categorise recommendations:

• Public Transport – Blue;

• Walking and Cycling – Green;

• Demand Management – Yellow;

• Highway Network – Orange.

General non development specifi c, good practice measures that should be incorporated in the spatial and transport policy for the study area are described before measures to address the sub-regional and local objectives that specifi cally relate to the three main corridors are identifi ed.

These measures are described using the following three headings:

• land use measures;

• travel planning;

• parking;

• freight;

• information provision;

• integrated ticketing;

• public rights of way.

6.2.1 Land Use Measures

Land use measures are ways of promoting use of alternative modes to the car through the integration of spatial and transport planning objectives. Mixed use, high density development is considered particularly advantageous, as it reduces the need to travel, particularly by car. Opportunities to walk, cycle and use public transport are maximised by locating residential development in close proximity to employment and other vital services.

The development characteristics as described below are widely accepted as being important in a sustainable development.

High density development, served by a good public transport system, is very important in encouraging sustainable travel. A high density, mixed use development enables more services to be accessed on foot or by bicycle, and, importantly, creates suffi cient demand and enhances the viability of providing high frequency public transport services. Development densities should therefore take account of public transport opportunities. Higher density, mixed use development should be focused around public transport corridors. This guidance is particularly relevant for the location of new residential developments in the areas main towns. A ‘graded’ approach to acceptable densities should be adopted that relates accessibility by sustainable modes to appropriate development density. This will promote higher target densities within the town centres.

Locating development close to existing and planned public transport nodes is important. The existing public transport nodes in the region are as follows:

• Gillingham railway station;

• Gillingham town centre;

• Blandford Forum market place;

• Shaftesbury town centre;

• East Stour Interchange.

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 78 of 188 Mixed-use development allows the distances people travel to be reduced, making the use of non car modes more viable options. Large scale new developments can be designed to incorporate a range of services. Existing areas too can be converted to mixed-use by a process of ‘retro-fi tting’ development, in order to supplement existing communities.

The general concept of mixed-use is to integrate housing, shops, schools, leisure/recreation facilities and places of work, giving people the opportunity to walk or cycle between them.

Live-work units provide a micro-level mixed-used development. These have a specifi c role to play in developing sustainable communities and should be considered in areas where they would be appropriate.

Recommendations: 1) The mix, density and location of development should seek to minimise the need to travel and encourage sustainable travel patterns - Transport Assessments and Transport Statements should accompany planning applications for development where appropriate.

6.2.2 Travel Planning

Travel plans are broadly defi ned as packages of measures designed to reduce the number and length of car trips generated by development, generally by encouraging public use of more sustainable, non car based forms of travel and reducing the overall need to travel. For the purposes of this strategy two broad types of travel plan are considered:

• travel plans for new development;

• community travel plans.

Dorset County Council has adopted a policy to seek travel plans for major new developments as part of the planning application process. This approach is supported but it should be subject to a review that enables it to respond to the developing pressures on the transport network. Formal adoption of mode share targets for development types, based upon location and, potentially, linked to a timeline that imposes stricter mode shares as sustainable travel infrastructure is brought forward (triggers), should be considered.

There is a suite of diff erent Travel Plans and associated guidance that address new development. A residential travel plan, for example, diff ers from other forms of travel planning (e.g. school and workplace travel plans) as it is concerned with all journeys made from a single location (individual household) to multiple and changing destinations.

The Progress Report and Mid Term Review for the Dorset Local Transport Plan (Dorset County Council, 2008c) indicates that the County is on target to meet its objective of all schools having a full travel plan by 2011. In addition, Dorset County Council is encouraged to set targets for the adoption of workplace travel plans and community travel plans. The Mid Term Review for the Dorset Transport Plan states that 13% of the workforce of Dorset is covered by a Travel Plan, this fi gure excludes schools.

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 79 of 188 According to the Dorset Data Book 2008 mid-2006 population estimates, over fi fty percent of the population in North Dorset lives outside Gillingham, Shaftesbury, Blandford Forum and Sturminster Newton. Furthermore, all areas of East Dorset included in the study area are classifi ed as rural. The Rural Reach study (2008) by Addison and Associates looked at access to services in rural communities. One of the recommendations of the study was for the County Council to promote the development of an area based community travel plan. It advocated that a personalised travel planning approach should be taken, including a detailed street audit covering issues like walking and cycling as well as waiting facilities and safety.

The outcome of this work could be used to prioritise future lists of capital schemes. It is emphasised that the area based community travel plans should use a ‘blank sheet’ approach, involving all relevant stakeholders including communities, the Council and operators. A 10% reduction in car use and associated mode shift is suggested by the study as a suitable initial target. The Rural Reach study is attached as an appendix to this report.

Recommendation: 2) Dorset County Council review its current Travel Plan policy to ensure that it responds to predicated growth in the County. 3) Dorset County Council to promote community travel planning initiatives.

6.2.3 Community Travel Exchange Centres

The intention of the Community Travel Exchange Centre is to reduce the need for travel (cutting vehicle kilometres) in rural communities by providing key services and collective transport opportunities locally.

The concept looks to reinforce traditional village centres by reinstating services which were traditionally provided locally. It also aims to provide better access to a comprehensive range of non-local services. The services would be provided at, or accessed from, a single location known as a community travel ‘Exchange’. The ‘Exchange’ could make use of an existing facility such as a Parish or Town Hall that is:

• centrally located within the community;

• good access to the public rights of way (PROW) network, cycle network and highway network;

• able to accommodate car and cycle parking;

• accommodate large vehicles either to lay over or unload, for example a space that can be used for a mobile library.

The ‘Exchange’ links to current local transport policy by:

• providing support for rural communities by enabling better connections between neighbourhoods and better access opportunity;

• enhancing social inclusion by enabling all people to connect with employment opportunities, key services, social networks and goods through improving accessibility, availability, affordability and acceptability.

• improve rural accessibility;

• strengthen the community;

• provide services in a convenient location and at convenient times;

• reduce the need to travel by private car and overall distance travelled by vehicles, reducing the impact of travel on the environment.

Most of the key services could be delivered locally or accessed by the transport opportunities already on off er, such as Door to Dorset. Alternatively, some of the key services could be provided in a local community at the Exchange. The Exchange would off er services by three means:

• Inbound Exchange ‘bringing the service to the community’ would include mobile health clinics, education and food retail services visiting communities;

• Outbound Exchange ‘enabling the community to travel to services’ provide a central location for community car- share schemes, school and employer bus pick up or a community car club;

• Resident Exchange ‘providing services locally’ could include crèche facilities, broadband access and office facilities.

Inbound services transport key services into the community, for example, a mobile banking service. Inbound Exchange services, rather than having a traditional high street shop location, will rotate around a number of communities throughout the day/ evening. The Exchange will provide a parking space for the mobile services to layover or park up and unload equipment into a nearby building (Village Hall for example).

• Inbound Services might include:

• mobile NHS walk centre/General Practitioner;

• supermarket grocery van (currently operated by all major supermarkets);

• mobile library (currently operated by Dorset County Council);

• mobile banking (currently operated by Natwest).

Outbound services at the Exchange provide the community with access to a number transport options to access external services. These are vital connections between rural communities and the rest of the county.

• Outbound services could include:

• A regular stop by the Door to Dorset bus service, this is the demand responsive bus services already provided;

• A Car Club space for a community car club;

• Pick-up point for car-share, employer/school bus;

• Recycling centre.

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 81 of 188 A car club provides its members with quick and easy access to a car for short term hire. To encourage people to participate, the scheme could be organised so that membership is free of charge. Members can make use of car club vehicles as and when they need them. This means that people do not have to buy a car or pay the associated up-front costs but still have access to one for essential journeys.

Resident services are those that can be provided on a more permanent basis within village communities. Traditionally village centres have been focused around a Post Offi ce or village shop but in recent years these have began to dwindle and in some cases are no longer economically viable. An Exchange has a diff erent focus and is not necessarily for profi t. It is about reducing the need to travel by private car. Having a number of services provided at the same point can be self-sustaining. It cuts out the fi xed overheads associated with renting permanent premises and off ers services more fl exibly making the provision of key services in rural communities more viable.

• Access to communication technologies and office services (printing, admin, meeting rooms) are provided locally working from home becomes cheaper and more practical.

• Collection point for parcels. A product of the of internet shopping has been the increasing frequency of large parcels being delivered and all too often they are too large for letter boxes and are returned to local sorting offices. This is inconvenient and not cost efficient. Not only does the delivery van have a wasted journey but the recipient has to go to a remote location that can be a significant distance from their home address.

• Parish customer services centre. The focal point for the Exchange may be the parish office and the parish would be seen as key in managing the facility. As a result of this being the focal point of the centre it would inadvertently encourage more participation by the community in local politics and build valuable social capital and relationship in the community.

• Childcare is often difficult to arrange and can be expensive for people living in rural areas as they are required to travel a significant distance to drop off and collect their children.

• Rural park and ride spaces. The ‘Exchange’ may provide parking spaces so that residents only need to drive short distances to access a bus stop served by regular and convenient buses.

To develop this concept further, a small number of village communities should be identifi ed to be the subject of a case study. This should focus on establishing the specifi c requirement for services within these communities. More information about Community Travel Exchange Centres is provided in the appendix.

Recommendation: 4) Dorset County Council to assess the feasibility of providing a network of Community Travel Exchange Centres in village communities across North and north East Dorset.

The existing provision of public parking, and the parking policies applied to new developments by North Dorset and East Dorset District Councils are presented and explained in the Existing Conditions Report. This section describes the studies currently being undertaken by Dorset County Council to update the existing parking policies.

Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS) states that “Local Planning Authorities should, with stakeholders and communities, develop residential parking policies for their areas, taking account of expected levels of car ownership.” This is reiterated by Policy RTS 3 in the draft RSS (post EiP), which emphasises that Local Authorities need to manage the total parking stock in a way that refl ects the local circumstances and the relative accessibility of a location by sustainable modes.

In response to the guidance and policy identifi ed, Dorset County Council is preparing the Dorset Residential Parking Study. This puts forward a methodology to calculate the parking demand of new residential developments across the study area. It is recommended that the study becomes adopted policy, superseding the previous guidance. At present, the North Dorset District-Wide Local Plan and the East Dorset Local Plan set out the parking standards adopted for new developments in the study area. These standards, however, are not diff erentiated to take into account local variations.

It is argued that the methodology described by the Dorset Residential Parking Study off ers a more accurate approach to calculating the demand for parking for new developments across the county. It uses census data relating to housing type, and average household vehicle ownership data to help ascertain the level of parking demand according to the local circumstances. The level of parking varies according to whether the site is located in a town centre or a rural setting.

Using the methodology put forward by the study the total number of both allocated and unallocated parking spaces required for all types of housing can be ascertained. Allocated parking is defi ned as a parking space that the user has certainty of specifi c rights over being able to use. That certainty is given either by ownership of some other formalised right normally linked to land ownership. A good example of an allocated parking space is a garage or driveway located on a housing plot.

Unallocated parking is defi ned as a parking space which the user has no certainty of specifi c rights over being able to use. The simplest illustration of an unallocated parking space is kerbside parking on public highway that is within close proximity of a housing plot.

The application of the new methodology alongside other evidence based material considerations is expected to ensure that the appropriate requirements for parking are met for new residential developments across the county, resulting in land being used more effi ciently. The Dorset Residential Parking Study is not adopted policy as yet but is regarded by Dorset County Council as off ering the most up-to-date interim guidance on parking during the transition between parking standards in the current Local Plans and the Core Strategies at present in preparation.

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 84 of 188 The process used to calculate the total allocated and unallocated parking provision for any given new housing development in the study area is summarised in Figure 6—1.

The residential Parking Study does not cover destination parking in the district’s towns and villages. This is the subject of a separate study currently being undertaken by Dorset County Council.

The outcome of this study will inform the approach both the District and County Council’s need to take concerning the management of off -street public parking in the district’s towns.

The management of public parking provision, particularly in the area’s main towns is complex given the following four main confl icting interests:

• Revenue: the need for local authorities to break even on their parking accounts, and to use land in the most economically productive way.

• Restraint: the requirement to provide public parking levels at levels that do not encourage unnecessary car use.

• Regeneration: the need to conserve and enhance the regions main town centres. Insufficient parking provision may have an adverse impact on the local economies as people choose to access services elsewhere.

• Rural accessibility: it is acknowledged that the car is the only viable means of transport for some of the most isolated rural communities in the study area, these communities must not be disadvantaged by an over commitment to achieving parking restraint.

The Public Parking Study, once completed, should be adopted as the local approach to managing both on and off street parking in towns.

The Key Stakeholder Consultation for this transport study identifi ed two particularly signifi cant parking issues in Shaftesbury and Gillingham. In recent years, there have been problems with a shortage of off street parking supply in Shaftesbury. The additional spaces provided by the Tesco’s car park and at the Barton Hill site have been welcomed by local residents and the community partnerships. However, there is still concern amongst local businesses that people will choose to access services and shop elsewhere unless additional spaces are provided. The lack of off -street parking occasionally causes problems in the town centre with vehicles parking on street causing obstructions.

Consultation with the Three Rivers Community Partnership revealed that there are also signifi cant parking issues in Gillingham. Most notably, it is argued that there is an insuffi cient supply of parking spaces at Gillingham train station. Demand for car parking at the station is understood, through key stakeholder consultation, to be greater than the available capacity. As a result, overspill car parking occurs on the surrounding roads. The cost of parking at the station is currently £2.50 per day. This problem could be mitigated by public transport improvements at Gillingham train station, including the implementation of the Gillingham Interchange scheme.

Recommendations: 5) The Dorset County Council Residential Parking Study to be adopted. 6) The Public Parking Study currently being undertaken by Dorset County Council to be adopted.

Responses from the key stakeholder consultation suggest that the movement of HGVs has a negative impact on environmentally and socially sensitive parts of the study area. Large vehicles associated with agriculture, including tractors, large machinery and milk tankers require access to farm sites, however, and they also have a pronounced environmental and physical impact on the network of minor rural roads. Slow movement of these vehicles causes localised congestion and delays to journey time.

The majority of freight movements on the local road network are created by normal supply and distribution of goods to the resident population. Furthermore, freight movements passing through the study area, with origins and destinations outside of North and north East Dorset should also be taken into consideration. It is assumed that current freight movements will increase proportionally with the development associated with the RSS in both the local and surrounding areas. However, there are a number of local freight movement generators that are considered in more detail including the operations of Poole Harbour, local mineral extraction activity and from the industrial areas both within North and north East Dorset and the South East Dorset conurbation.

The Dorset Minerals and Waste Local Plan sets out guidance for the extraction of minerals in the area. The Plan acknowledges the balance needed between supplying society’s growing need for minerals, and the necessity to protect and preserve existing resources to an environmentally acceptable level. It is stated that a ‘demand led’ approach in which the land released for mineral working is based largely or entirely on meeting an anticipated demand for minerals is not sustainable. On this basis, it is assumed that the amount of materials extracted annually is unlikely to change signifi cantly in the plan period.

A consultation with the Poole Harbour Commissioners revealed that there will be signifi cant growth in container freight generated at Poole Harbour. The predictions linked to the Department for Transport’s Discussion Document for the Ports Policy Review, May 2006, indicate that Roll On-Roll Off freight requirements will see expansion during the period of the RSS, second only to the expansion in container traffi c. The Harbour Commissioners suggest that it is essential for the economic wellbeing of the region that Poole can compete with other ports in the UK of a similar status.

Medium sized container ‘feeder-ships’ currently operate out of the harbour, the arrivals and departures of which are staggered throughout the day. In addition, the cross-Channel ferry operated by Brittany Ferries provides a service to Cherbourg during the week. The current timetable for June 2009 indicates that there are two sailings per day on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday; and three sailings per day on Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. There are two ferries operating on a regular basis out of Poole, these are the Normandie Vitesse, a high speed catamaran with a maximum car capacity of 185 vehicles, and the MV Barfl eur, capable of carrying 590 vehicles, including cars and lorries.

It is estimated that in total there are approximately 50,000 HGV movements in and out of the port annually at present. The potential for growth in container traffi c forecast in connection with the Ports Policy Review may lead to growth in coastal and feeder traffi c, a trade to which Poole would be ideally suited, subject to provision of adequate rail and road connections. In view of the outcome of the Ports Policy Review and the Eddington Study, Poole Harbour Commissioners anticipate that this could grow to 200,000 HGV container movements annually.

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 86 of 188 HGV trips are also generated by industrial activities in the neighbouring South East Dorset conurbation. The development of three further industrial sites at Ferndown and Bournemouth Airport to the south east of the study area and Henstridge to the north will generate additional movement of goods, the latter of which will directly aff ect the study area. In 2007 a planning application for business units/ warehouses at Aviation Park at Bournemouth airport was submitted. Measures to mitigate the impact of the development were negotiated including off site highway improvements on the B3083 Parley Lane, personalised travel planning for local residents and a travel plan for the development. There is no reference to the development impacting on the wider North and north East Dorset road network in the Transport Assessment (TA) supporting this planning application.

In Ferndown, outline planning permission has been granted for 8.5ha of employment land east of Cobham Road. The TA supporting the application set out a package of measures including off site highway, public transport and travel planning to mitigate the impact of the development. The TA made no reference to an impact on the wider North and north East Dorset road network.

There is a Masterplan for the future development of industrial land uses at Henstridge Airfi eld. The rationale for developing the Masterplan is to prevent the continuing ad hoc development of the site. Historically, proposals have been judged on their individual merits with no holistic view taken of the potential cumulative impacts of continuing development of the site.

South Somerset District Council is currently undertaking further data collection at the site in consideration of the proposed Masterplan and the contents of a Section 106 agreement.

Strategically, Regional Transport Strategy (RTS) 4 states that ‘the Primary Road Network (PRN) (including motorways and trunk roads) should be promoted for use by HGVs in preference to other routes. The routes should be signed appropriately…’ In accordance with this policy, Dorset County Council is encouraged to consider the implementation of suitable signage consistent with the Dorset Lorry Driver Route Map should be considered.

Given the increase in freight traffi c generated by the planned RSS growth of population in the local area, the expected increase of container freight movements by Poole Harbour and the transportation of minerals and waste to meet future demand, an integrated approach to managing the movement of HGVs is clearly needed.

Gloucestershire County Council have recently introduced an area wide ‘lorry management zone’ aimed at re-routing HGVs away from narrow lanes and villages in the Cotswolds AONB. The scheme recognises the economic importance of providing for reliable freight movements in the local area whilst balancing the need to preserve the quality of life and environmental integrity of local communities and the countryside. Following a public consultation exercise, a trial zone was established within which an area-wide 7.5t weight restriction was applied to all routes not classifi ed as designated ‘through-routes.’ On the restricted routes, access is only permissible for loading and unloading purposes. To complement these policy measures, Gloucestershire County Council is working with hauliers and local rural communities to develop a dialogue that will help them understand each other’s problems. The Council will also be delivering infrastructure schemes that will help facilitate easier freight journeys on designated through routes. Finally, Gloucestershire Council will update the Advisory Freight Route Map and all freight related web pages on their website to take account of the scheme. Furthermore, the scheme also seeks to assist the Ordinance Survey and the Regional Freight Forum in the development of a freight-specifi c satellite navigation system. Dorset County Council is encouraged to become actively involved in the discussions and measures being taken to adapt satellite navigation systems take account of freight routes.

Accordingly, it is recommended that a freight management study, similar in nature to the study undertaken by Gloucestershire County Council described in the case study, be undertaken with a view to adopting a policy on freight for Dorset. This recommendation is consistent with Management Policy PD4c in the Dorset AONB Management Plan (2009-2014) that seeks to develop a freight movement strategy to limit inappropriate use of rural routes in the AONB.

Recommendation: 7) Dorset County Council to undertake a Freight Management Study to maximise the effi cient movement of goods vehicles on the existing road network. The strategy should include: Review of previous freight management strategies (including Gloucestershire County Council’s ‘Lorry Management Zone’ and Leicestershire County Council’s ‘Lorry Route Network Map’). Review legislation governing the imposition of weight restrictions on parts of the local road network. Consultation and dialogue between aff ected communities and hauliers to establish priorities. Dorset County Council to establish a steering group (‘Freight Quality Partnership’) to guide the freight strategy. Identifi cation of key destinations and most ‘appropriate through routes.’ Update Lorry Route Map for Dorset appropriately. Dorset County Council and the ‘Freight Quality Partnership’ to jointly engage with the Ordinance Survey to report on fi ndings of the Study and encourage the development of freight specifi c satellite navigation systems.

Dorset County Council has established a Freight Quality Partnership involving the Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association. This partnership will identify and seek to address the main issues aff ecting the effi cient movement of local and long distance freight movements on the road network across Dorset.

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 88 of 188 The partnership will seek to establish good practice guidance to be distributed amongst goods suppliers to ensure that the existing roads are used in the most effi cient way. In particular the Freight Quality Partnership is pursuing a voluntary one-way system for goods vehicles using the A350 corridor. This scheme, through the use of appropriate signage, will divert HGVs travelling south onto the A350, whilst HGVs travelling north will be directed to use the C13. The anti clockwise one way system mitigates the impact of the steep gradients that are diffi cult for HGVs to negotiate at Cann Hill and Spread Eagle Hill on the A350 and C13 respectively.

To raise awareness of the issue and discuss the option further, Dorset County Council will engage with Parish Councils in the A350 corridor. In addition, they will publicise the issue more widely in the trade press to gain the input of logistics and transport professionals from across the country.

6.2.6 Information Provision

Providing accurate and concise information to travellers has the potential to infl uence travel behaviour. The provision of readily accessible public transport timetable information can, for example, infl uence the mode of travel. The Highways Agency is currently considering the feasibility of installing variable message signs on the section of the A303 that runs through the study area. In addition a new network management centre is being established to monitor journey times on the A31, and provide drivers with accurate real time travel information. This is discussed further under specifi c measures for the A303 and A31 corridors.

The new technologies which the network management centre encompasses will be able to provide the travelling public with information such as delays on the highway network, road safety information and present information on travel alternatives allowing people to choose more sustainable non-car based modes where appropriate.

6.2.7 Direction Signing

Adequate and accurate vehicle directional signage can assist in reducing journey time. There are two issues of notable concern in North and north East Dorset:

• the routing of HGV vehicles;

• the influence of satellite navigation on vehicle routing.

New signage should be in accordance with Policy RTS4 in the draft RSS (post EiP).

Recommendations: 8) The Multi Area Agreement to deliver the Network Management Centre to provide drivers on county’s main road corridors with accurate travel information. 9) Ensure that signing of freight on the local road network is consistent with Policy RTS4 in the draft RSS (post EiP).

There is currently an uncoordinated approach to public transport information provision in North and north East Dorset which does not extract the maximum benefi t of the existing services. All development should provide public transport information in Travel Plans. There should be timetables at all bus stops and opportunities to install real time travel information should be explored in both the Development Policy B and C settlements. Real time bus information may be most useful at transport interchanges, most notably at Gillingham railway station.

The key stakeholder consultation revealed that a lack of readily available and accurate travel time information discourages people from using scheduled and Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) bus services and rail services.

Recommendation: 10) Dorset County Council to consider feasibility of installing real time bus information at bus stops in development policy B and C settlements.

6.2.9 Integrated Ticketing

This is a recommendation based on public responses collected during the key stakeholder consultation for this study. It is recommended that Dorset County Council work with bus and rail operators to review the feasibility of, and the processes needed for, introducing cross ticketing in the local area. Inability to use the return portion of DRT tickets on other commercial bus services discourages some people from using public transport. Furthermore, a scheme similar to PLUSBUS in Yeovil, that introduces tickets that are transferable on both bus and rail services would encourage residents living in the Gillingham and Shaftesbury area to use public transport for longer distance journeys. This may, for example, encourage residents who travel to Yeovil and Shaftesbury to travel by train, therefore removing car trips from the A30 and A303.

It is understood that Dorset County Council is considering trialling a cross ticketing scheme between Dorchester and Weymouth for the London 2012 Olympics. A similar scheme could be implemented in the medium term in North and north East Dorset. This measure could be implemented prior to 2016.

6.2.10 Cyclists and Pedestrian Signing

The Manual for Streets states that the propensity of a person to walk is infl uenced not only by distance, but also by the quality of the walking experience. It emphasises the need for legible design, to help all users orientate themselves and understand where they are going. The Manual sets out the design features that are intended to optimise the permeability of new and existing pedestrian and cyclist networks.

Appropriate signage for pedestrians between transport nodes and key amenities such as healthcare facilities, schools and food shops is encouraged. The need to provide pedestrians with a legible network of footpaths must be balanced with a desire to minimise clutter and promote a sense of place, by designing streets that communicate locally distinctive features. This was a particularly strong theme in the adopted guidance contained within the Rural Roads Protocol (Dorset County Council, 2008d).

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 90 of 188 An audit of signs on key walking and cycling links will ensure that connections between transport nodes such as public car parks, and central bus stops, and key services are legible. The audit must take account of the guidance issued in the Rural Roads Protocol and consider the appropriateness of pedestrian signage given the rural setting of the development policy B and C settlements. The audit should also ensure that the existing street layouts are not over signed, and in particular that redundant signs are removed.

Recommendation: 11) Undertake an audit of signs to make sure connections between the main transport nodes such as public car parks, central bus stops and key services in Development Policy B and C settlements are legible for pedestrians and cyclists.

6.2.11 Public Rights of Way

The Rights of Way Improvement Plan for Dorset states that the public rights of way network presents an outdated, poor travel and transport network which is underutilised as a resource and often only valued for its recreational role. The Rights of Way Improvement Plan comprises an action plan setting objectives designed to manage, secure and improve the existing network. One of the main objectives is the need to develop an access resource that can be enjoyed by people of all needs, interests and abilities. This requires a structured process to identifying, prioritising and timetabling appropriate work needed to restore/ improve upon existing specifi c routes, sites and information provision. At present there is no centralised coordinated approach to identifying and prioritising schemes. Therefore there is a clear need for a defi nitive central database of all the existing/ new public rights of way schemes. This should draw together information that at present is dispersed amongst a number of sources.

Recommendations: 12) Produce and maintain an up-to-date and defi nitive database of existing and proposed public right of way schemes. 13) Defi ne and apply a set of criteria to help prioritise and timetable proposed public rights of way improvements and new schemes.

This section identifi es infrastructure and other measures that are appropriate for each of the three main transport corridors in the study area. For each corridor committed infrastructure is reviewed, followed by recommendations for new infrastructure and, fi nally, measures for each town are described. Existing commuting patterns are reviewed in the Existing Conditions report. The Existing Conditions report indicates that almost half the population in North Dorset reside in the four main towns. The majority of work trips generated by Gillingham, Shaftesbury and Blandford Forum are short distance local trips. In accordance with this, the town infrastructure identifi ed is designed to improve conditions for pedestrians and cyclists.

Accessibility to key services is the main consideration for settlements in the north East Dorset part of the study area. In these settlements the focus of the strategy is to address specifi c local transport issues through the provision of community travel planning and where appropriate Community Travel Exchange Centres.

The strategy has to provide an appropriate movement framework for a signifi cant amount of development within the local and wider area. It is inevitable that development will result in additional road traffi c on the road network. Embracing sustainable travel strategies and development principles will help to mitigate the impact of traffi c on the existing road network, and underpins the approach taken. Even with a high level of sustainable intervention, the construction of additional road infrastructure should be considered, particularly given the rural nature of much of the study area.

Dorset County Council is currently reorganising the existing road hierarchy. The new hierarchy categorises each road by its present function in the network. It will assist in a number of planning decisions in areas such as routine maintenance, winter maintenance, freight movements, signing, speed limits, drainage and rural roads.

6.4 A350 Corridor

6.4.1 Current Infrastructure Proposals

The following schemes are identifi ed by existing policies in the North Dorset District-Wide Local Plan and the East Dorset Local Plan.

6.4.1.1 Outer Shaftesbury Bypass

Under Policy 5.22 in the North Dorset District-Wide Local Plan and Policy X of the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan, land is safeguarded for the A350 Shaftesbury Outer Bypass. According to the Rural Dorset LTP2 2006- 2011 Progress Report and Mid Term Review, a submission for the funding for this scheme was made through the Regional Funding Allocation (RFA) process, covering the period until 2019. In February 2009 it was confi rmed that the scheme will not receive RFA funding within the period up to 2019. It is therefore identifi ed as a scheme that can only be implemented in the long term, post 2019. This measure is intended to mitigate the adverse aff ects of traffi c on settlements along the corridor. In addition, the A350 Corridor Study (Buro Happold, 2006) stated that 78% of the A350 between Shaftsbury and Corfe Mullen is classifi ed as poor or worse quality.

Land has been safeguarded along the alignment of the Spetisbury and Charlton Marshall Bypass under Policy 5.22 of the North Dorset District-Wide Local Plan, Policy X of the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan and Policy RODEV1 in the East Dorset Plan. At present the A350 runs directly through the centre of these settlements, creating problems such as congestion, noise pollution, severance and road safety concerns. The A350 Corridors Study, supported the scheme, stating that it would provide substantial benefi ts to residents in Spetisbury, Charlton Marshall and Sturminster Marshall. According to the Rural Dorset LTP2 2006-2011 Progress Report and Mid Term Review, a bid to secure RFA funding in the period up to 2019 was also submitted for this scheme; however, it has not been successful. As a consequence, it will not be implemented before 2019 and is regarded as a long term scheme.

Recommendation: 14) Review major road schemes in the North Dorset District-Wide Local Plan, and the East Dorset Local Plan that are relevant to the study area, to establish their viability in the current policy and funding climate.

6.4.2 Corridor Infrastructure

The following measures are specifi cally identifi ed for the A350 corridor.

6.4.2.1 The A350 Route Management Scheme (RMS)

This was introduced by the Rural Dorset LTP2 in 2005. The necessity for the scheme was identifi ed by a traffi c safety and maintenance management study, the purpose of which was to address safety concerns on the route and to bring about environmental benefi ts to local communities on both the A350 and the C13. A range of traffi c engineering measures has already been implemented on the corridor including speed limit changes, minor junction improvements, enhanced warning signs of HGVs at pinch points, the realignment of bends along the C13 and some resurfacing work. At present, Dorset County Council is assessing other short and medium term education, enforcement and engineering measures to minimise the impact of traffi c, particularly HGV on local communities along this corridor.

The reorganisation of the road hierarchy will have an impact on the distribution of traffi c on the local road network. Other policy measures, such as separating northward and southward HGV traffi c between the A350 and C13, are also being considered.

The latest Traffi c Safety Plan 2007 -2012 indicates that the A350/C13 Route Management Scheme is scheduled to continue until 2012.

6.4.2.2 Fixed Timetable Bus Service Improvements

Given the scale of the increase in travel demand caused by RSS growth within the A350 corridor, opportunities for improving existing and introducing new public transport services should be reviewed. The 2001 Census origin and destination survey is used to estimate the distribution of work trip movements for Shaftesbury and Blandford Forum, both on the A350 corridor. The results indicate that commuting patterns diff er between the northern and southern halves of the A350 corridor. The number of commuters travelling between Shaftesbury and Blandford Forum is lower than expected. There is a stronger commuting pattern between Shaftesbury, Salisbury, Gillingham and Yeovil in the north of the corridor, whilst there is a relationship between Blandford Forum and the South East Dorset conurbation in the south (see Table 6—7 and Table 6—8).

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 93 of 188 Earliest Number of Bus Service Destination Latest Return Notes Outbound services per day Alderholt 38 Gillingham - 10.30 13.45 1 Fri only Shaftesbury - Ringwood - Bournemouth 41 Salisbury - Alderholt - 07.19 17.47 1 Mon - Sat Cranborne Alderholt 09.30 16:30 Taxi service 301 Wimborne - Salisbury 09.59 13.30 1 Tue 302 Blandford Forum - 09.59 14.00 1 Sat Wimborne - Salisbury 303 Cranborne - Ringwood 10.39 14.15 1 Wed 324 Cranborne - 09.04 13.05 1 Mon Christchurch Sixpenny Handley 38 Bournemouth 10.07 15.00 1 Fri 38 Gillingham, via 14.43 - 2 Fri Shaftesbury 184 Blandford Forum 09.09 18.22 7 Mon - Sat 184 Weymouth 09.09 15.20 5 Mon - Sat term time 184 Salisbury 07.42 17.45 8 Mon - Sat Sturminster Marshall 83 Shaftesbury - 07.15 17.15 8 Mon - Sat Blandford Forum - Wimborne 83 Wimborne - Blandford 07.40 17.37 8 Mon - Sat Forum - Shaftesbury 315 Blandford Forum - 09.42 13.30 1 Wed Wimborne - Ringwood X8 Blandford Forum - 07.16 23.30 16 Mon - Fri Poole X8 Poole - Blandford 08.06 22.28 16 Mon - Fri Forum

Table 6—4 North East Dorset bus time table (Dorset County Council, 2008b)

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 94 of 188 Table 6—4 shows the fi xed timetable bus services currently serving villages in north East Dorset. It demonstrates that there is a regular service connecting Sturminster Marshall with Blandford Forum and Poole. The X8 enables commuters to travel by public transport both during the early morning and evening. Furthermore there are late running services enabling residents of Sturminster Marshall to access services and amenities in Poole and Blandford Forum. Service numbers 83 and 315 provide a less frequent connection to Wimborne. The latest returning number 83 bus from Wimborne is at 17.15, this may prevent those who work until later from using public transport.

Sixpenny Handley is located on the number 184 bus route providing a connection with Salisbury and Blandford Forum. At present there are seven services per day during the week to Blandford Forum, and a further 8 services per day to Salisbury. The earliest bus to Blandford Forum leaves Sixpenny Handley at 09.09 which may restrict the use of the bus for commuting purposes.

There are no frequent buses serving Alderholt. The number 41 provides a daily connection to Cranborne, whilst there is a taxi service operated by NORDCAT that provides a public transport link to Fordingbridge. The key stakeholder consultation responses indicated that the taxi service is considered vital by local residents for accessing banking and retail opportunities in Fordingbridge

Table 6—6 indicates that the proportion of commuters using the bus in Shaftesbury and Blandford Forum is signifi cantly lower than the national average. Assuming that the mode share for travel to work on the bus can be increased to 10%, and that each household is occupied by 2.3 persons, 57% of which commute to work, the development of 1200 and 1500 households in Shaftesbury and Blandford Forum respectively would only generate an estimated additional 7 bus commuter journeys between the two towns. On this basis, it is suggested that the commuting relationship between Shaftesbury and Blandford Forum on the A350 corridor is not signifi cant enough to justify more frequent bus services on this route, however, using the same assumptions the new housing discussed for Blandford Forum would generate an additional 14 commuter bus journeys between Blandford Forum and Poole, and 4 to Wimborne Minster.

The existing X8 hourly bus service between Blandford Forum and Poole may accommodate this level of increased demand. At present (according to the April 2008 timetable) there are fi fteen X8 services per day between Blandford Forum and Poole. The earliest departure is at 07.00, and the latest return from Poole is at 23.30. Two X8 services arrive in Poole before 09.00 the fi rst of which begins at Sturminster Newton at 07.10. There are three further direct bus connections between Sturminster Newton and Poole (the number 368 service). The earliest of these leaves Sturminster Newton at 09.21 and the latest return journey on this service leaves Poole at 18.09. To accommodate trip making by public transport for other trip purposes such as access shopping and education, it is recommended that Dorset County Council and the Wilts and Dorset Bus Company assess the feasibility of providing additional X8 services connecting to Sturminster Newton.

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 95 of 188 Estimates of the additional demand for public transport generated by development at Blandford only take account of commuting trips. It is acknowledged that additional demand will be generated for other trip purposes, for example, education, shopping and personal business.

Trips per person per year Region South West (Count) South West (Percentage) Commuting 149 13.4 Business 47 4.2 Education 58 5.2 Shopping 223 20.1 Personal business 116 10.5 Escort 155 14.0 Visiting friends 165 14.9 Sport & Entertainment 79 7.1 Holidays & day trips 60 5.4 Other including just walk 56 5.1 All purposes 1,108 100.0

Table 6—5 Trips by purpose 2005-2006 (Department for Transport, 2008)

Table 6—5 shows that commuting trips account for 13.4% of the total number of trips made per person per year. Shopping accounts for 20.1% of all trips. Assuming that a proportion of education and other trip purposes occur inside the peak hours, the demand for public transport between Gillingham, Shaftesbury, Yeovil and Salisbury in the northern half of the study area, and Blandford Forum and the South East Dorset conurbation in the southern half will be more than estimated above.

6.4.2.3 Demand Responsive Bus Services

The more dispersed nature of commuting trips towards the south of the A350 corridor, around Blandford Forum, requires the provision of a more fl exible bus service. It is therefore recommended that Dorset County Council continues to expand the Door to Dorset Scheme. The Door to Dorset scheme includes North Dorset Community Accessible Transport (NORDCAT) providing a door to door demand responsive transport (DRT) service enabling access to shopping, healthcare facilities and other vital amenities. The service is available to anyone who has diffi culty using fi xed schedule public transport. There is a nominal annual registration fee to use these services.

According to Dorset County Council’s current LTP2, the DRT service will be expanded to incorporate 9 areas by 2010. Area 5 includes Blandford Forum and surrounding rural communities, whilst Area 8 covers the rural communities surrounding Shaftesbury and Gillingham.

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 96 of 188 Recommendation: 15) Dorset County Council to work with Wilts and Dorset Bus Company Ltd to assess feasibility of additional early morning and late evening buses operating on the number X8 service between Sturminster Newton, Blandford Forum and Poole. 16) Dorset County Council to work with bus operators to look at feasibility of additional late evening bus services between Blandford, Sturminster Marshall and Wimborne Minster. 17) Dorset County Council to work with Wilt and Dorset Bus Company to review timetable for the 184 bus service between Salisbury, Blandford and Weymouth to maximise commuting potential for villages on route. 18) Delivery of demand responsive transport services in areas 5 and 8, incorporating the rural hinterlands of Blandford Forum, Shaftesbury and Gillingham.

England and Blandford Mode Dorset Average (%) Gillingham (%) Shaftesbury (%) Wales (%) Forum (%) Train 4.5 0.5 2.3 0.9 0.2 Bus 8.2 2.6 1.1 1.4 3.3 Driving car 60.9 69.9 66.8 64.1 65.3 or van Passenger in 6.9 6.9 7 6.7 6.3 a car or van Bicycle 3 3.6 4.9 3.1 3.5 On foot 11 13.9 15.6 21.6 19.3 Other 5.5 2.6 2.3 2.2 2.1 Total 100 100 100 100 100

Table 6—6 Mode share for the resident population method of travel to work (Offi ce for National Statistics, 2001a)

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 97 of 188 From To Commuters Percent Shaftesbury 1638 52 Salisbury 161 5 (District) Gillingham 168 5 The Beacon 79 3 Motcombe 79 3 and Ham Stour Valley 67 3 (Sturminster Shaftesbury Newton) Blandford 64 2 Forum Donhead 62 2 Knoyle 52 2 Yeovil 39 1 Western and 25 1 Mere Other 720 21

Table 6—7 Distribution of work trips produced at Shaftesbury (Offi ce for National Statistics, 2001b)

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 98 of 188 From To Commuters Percent Blandford 1905 43 Forum Portman 349 8 Poole 329 7 The Lower 313 7 Tarrants Bournemouth 127 3 Hill Forts 102 2 Blandford Forum Wimborne 81 2 Minster Dorchester 69 2 Shaftesbury 63 1 Salisbury 45 1 Stour Valley 40 1 (Sturminster Newton) Other 1023 23

Table 6—8 Distribution of work trips produced at Blandford Forum (Offi ce for National Statistics, 2001b)

Figure 3—4 indicates that both Shaftesbury and Blandford Forum are relatively self-contained with regard to commuting patterns. The number of people living and working in each of the towns is greater than the number of in-commuters and out-commuters. The 2001 Census resident population distance travelled to work dataset shows that approximately 40% and 44% of residents in employment living in Shaftesbury and Blandford Forum respectively travel less than 2km to work. The containment index and the census data suggest that the transport strategy within the main towns needs to focus on infrastructure to facilitate short distance trips by bicycle and on foot.

The walking and cycling schemes in Appendix B, C and D have been identifi ed for Shaftesbury, Blandford Forum and Sturminster Newton.

Recommendations: 19) Implement walking and cycling improvements identifi ed for Shaftesbury, Blandford Forum and Sturminster Newton in Appendix B, C and D.

The North Dorset Trailway is a discontinuous, off -road multi purpose path running between Stalbridge and Sturminster Marshall. It follows the route of the old Somerset and Dorset Railway. At present only four sections of the route are open to the public including:

15) Stalbridge (0.4 miles)

16) Sturminster Newton to Shillingstone (4 miles)

17) Blandford Forum (0.6 miles)

18) Blandford Forum to Spetisbury (2.5 miles)

In addition, the length of the former railway line between Corfe Mullen and the East Dorset District boundary north of Sturminster Marshall has been designated in the East Dorset Local Plan for use as a trailway. This would provide an off - road connection between Blandford Forum, Charlton Marshall, Spetisbury and Sturminster Marshall.

The Cycle Access Solutions for East Dorset (CASED) project, part funded by East Dorset Community Partnership, Dorset County Council and Dorset Cyclist Network has produced a map of existing and suggested cycle routes in Alderholt, which is a possible development policy C settlement and could receive development as a consequence of the RSS.

The (CASED) map for Alderholt identifi es a network of on road cycle routes through the village. The B3078 (Daggons Road and Station Road) is identifi ed as a suggested cycle route providing a connection to Fordingbridge approximately 3.5km to the north east of Alderholt. On road cycle routes are also identifi ed on Park Lane, Earlswood Drive and Birchwood Drive, providing a connection to St James Church of England First School.

Recommendations: 20) Implement walking, cycling and equestrian schemes identifi ed and prioritised by the rights of way improvement plan.

6.6 A303 Corridor

The A303 is an important strategic route linking Exeter with London and the South East. It is a trunk road (managed by the Highways Agency) providing rapid east-west movement across the north of Dorset. The road is dual carriageway in parts but a number of single carriageway sections remain. Gillingham and Shaftesbury lying just to the south of the A303 are regarded to be part of this corridor. This is confi rmed by the commuting patterns identifi ed in Table 6—7 and Table 6—9.

6.6.1 Current Infrastructure Proposals

According to the Highways Agency, there are no major infrastructure improvements planned for the A303. It is recognised as a regionally important corridor, and therefore funding for schemes is secured through the Regional Funding Allocation (RFA). No schemes on the A303 in the latest RFA covering the period to 2019 have received funding.

6.6.1.1 Enmore Link Road

This scheme is identifi ed in the North Dorset District-Wide Local Plan under Policy SB17. It involves the construction of a link road between the B3081 and the A30.

6.6.1.2 A30/ B3092 East Stour Crossroads

This scheme has been prioritised by Dorset County Council and is included in the North Dorset District-Wide Local Plan under policy 5.28. It involves the realignment of the A30/B3092 cross road at East Stour. This scheme should be completed by 2016.

6.6.1.3 Variable Message Signing on the A303

The Highways Agency has indicated that measures to maximise the effi cient use of existing infrastructure along the A303 will be introduced, including variable message signing. This will provide users of the A303 with travel information, increasing journey time reliability.

The following measures are specifi cally identifi ed for the A303 corridor.

6.6.2.1 A30/ C21 West Stour Crossroads

This scheme involves improvement works to the A30/C21 crossroad in West Stour. It will address road safety concerns on the A30 corridor west of Shaftesbury. These improvements will be of benefi t to those moving between Gillingham, Shaftesbury, Sherborne and Yeovil on the A30.

6.6.2.2 A30/ B3081/ B3092 Shaftesbury, Gillingham and East Stour Route Management

This scheme has already been prioritised by Dorset County Council. A traffi c safety and maintenance management study should be carried out to identify suitable measures. An approach involving a combination of enforcement, engineering and education measures is needed to make sure that the B3081 is able to accommodate the forecasted increase in travel demand between Gillingham and Shaftesbury. The engineering measures should include Enmore Green Link Road; this is already incorporated in the North Dorset Local Plan SB17. The scheme should be implemented in the fi rst half of the RSS period, prior to 2016, to facilitate sustainable growth at Gillingham and Shaftesbury. This work would be of most benefi t to Gillingham and Shaftesbury.

Recommendation: 21) Review the following schemes to improve the B3081/B3092 and A30 corridor linking Gillingham and Shaftesbury with the aim of either delivering or removing from the program: - Enmore link road; - A30/B3092 East Stour Crossroads; - A30/C21 West Stour Crossroads. 22) Dorset County Council is encouraged to implement the A30/B3081/B3092 Shaftesbury, Gillingham and East Stour Route Management Strategy.

6.6.2.3 Fixed Timetable Bus Service Improvements

The increased travel demand associated with the possible development at Gillingham and Shaftesbury creates a clear opportunity to review the existing public transport provision in this corridor.

The 2001 Census origin and destination survey is used to estimate the distribution of work trips from Gillingham and Shaftesbury (see Table 6—7 and Table 6—9). The data shows the level of out commuting from Gillingham and Shaftesbury, to Yeovil, Wincanton and Salisbury (District) is signifi cant. Table 6—6 demonstrates that the proportion of people using the bus to travel to work in both Gillingham and Shaftesbury is low.

During the key stakeholder consultation, the Highways Agency suggested that they are likely to object to development that places extra traffi c on the A303. The Regional Network Report for the South West issued by the Highways Agency indicates that parts of the A303 will operate above capacity by 2016. Consequently, it is important that infrastructure is in place to enable any additional commuter trips generated by development to be accommodated either by public transport or on diff erent road links.

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 103 of 188 Using the same assumptions as previously made for the A350 corridor, the additional 3500 households that could be located in Shaftesbury and Gillingham could generate the following additional commuter bus trips:

• 12 bus trips between Gillingham and Salisbury;

• 15 bus trips between Gillingham, Wincanton and Yeovil;

• 8 bus trips between Shaftesbury and Salisbury;

• 12 bus trips between Gillingham and Salisbury; and

• 2 bus trips between Shaftesbury and Yeovil.

These estimates assume that 10% of local residents use the bus to travel to work, signifi cantly higher than the current mode share. It is emphasised that these estimates are based on work commuter trips only. Demand for public transport between Gillingham, Shaftesbury, Wincanton, Yeovil and Salisbury will be greater than stated once other trip purposes are taken into consideration, such as shopping and education trips.

From To Commuters Percent Gillingham 1922 49 Shaftesbury 285 7 Salisbury 143 4 Western and Mere 140 4 Wincanton 134 3 Motcombe and Ham 85 2 Gillingham Blackmoor Vale 84 2 Yeovil 64 2 The Beacon 64 2 Sherborne 39 1 Amesbury 22 1 Stours 21 1 Other 941 22

Table 6—9 Distribution of work trips produced at Gillingham (Offi ce for National Statistics, 2001b)

In recognition of the need to accommodate additional trips generated by development by public transport, a review of the existing bus and rail services connecting Gillingham, Shaftesbury, Wincanton, Yeovil and Salisbury is necessary.

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 104 of 188 Regular bus services operating more than once a day between Shaftesbury and Gillingham are the numbers 58, 59 and 309. There are a number of other services that run much less frequently (see Table 6—10). The only available early morning bus service for commuters travelling between Shaftesbury and Gillingham is at 08.30am, whilst there are two bus services during the AM peak travelling in the opposite direction.

Number of Days Route Number Earliest departure Latest return services per day operated Gillingham - Yeovil 3 09.05 13.40 1 Fri Gillingham - Shaftesbury 35 09.00 16.00 1 Thur - Swanage Gillingham - Shaftesbury 36 9.05 13.50 1 Fri - Yeovil Gillingham - Shaftesbury 37 09.00 14.50 1 Mon - Poole Gillingham - Shaftesbury 38 09.00 16.25 1 Fri - Bournemouth Gillingham - Salisbury 39 09.00 14.00 1 Tue Gillingham - Shaftesbury 45 09.00 17.10 1 Mon - Weymouth Blandford - Gillingham - 309 08.48 17.45 4 Mon-Fri Shaftesbury Shaftesbury - Gillingham 309 09.10 14.48 4 Mon-Fri - Blandford Shaftesbury – Gillingham 58 08.30 15.50 8 Mon - Sat - Yeovil Shaftesbury - Yeovil 658 07.10 n/a 1 Term time only College Shaftesbury - Gillingham 59 07.17 17.57 5 Mon - Sat Shaftesbury - Gillingham 80 09.00 17.40 1 Mon - Bath Shaftesbury - Salisbury 15 10.00 13.35 1 Tue Shaftesbury - Salisbury 26 12.55 17.33 4 Mon - Sat Shaftesbury - Salisbury 29 07.23 17.45 8 Mon - Sat

Table 6—10 Existing bus services operating between Gillingham and Shaftesbury (Dorset County Council, 2008b)

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 105 of 188 It is recommended that an additional bus service is provided between Shaftesbury and Gillingham in the morning peak hour to encourage commuting by bus. Additional later services between Gillingham and Shaftesbury may also make commuting by bus more practical and encourage existing residents to transfer to buses. At present the latest 59 bus service between Gillingham and Shaftesbury is at 17.57.

The feasibility of a more frequent bus service should be reviewed between Gillingham and Salisbury that also serves rural villages in East Dorset such as Sixpenny Handley. At present there is only one direct bus service, namely, the number 39. There is an opportunity to extend the number 29 service to include Gillingham. Using an existing service is preferable as the introduction of new services in this case could further fragment public transport in this area. There is an existing direct rail service providing a direct connection to Salisbury Station, located approximately 0.8km from Salisbury town centre. More frequent bus services, off ering greater fl exibility in terms of choice of destination coupled with the existing direct rail connection would provide commuters with a choice of public transport modes.

Services to Yeovil from both Shaftesbury and Gillingham are more frequent. The numbers 58 and 58a provide early morning and late evening connections to the centre of Yeovil. The bus may be preferred to the train when travelling between Gillingham and Yeovil as Yeovil Junction Station is located approximately 2 miles to the south of the town centre.

The introduction of a scheme like PLUSBUS, introducing tickets that are valid for both bus and rail services, is recommended. This would encourage residents living in the Gillingham and Shaftesbury area to use public transport for longer distance journeys. This should be considered as a medium term objective. Dorset County Council is encouraged to implement this scheme before 2016. A PLUSBUS scheme already operates in Yeovil.

Given the capacity constraints on the A303, and the opportunity to develop at Gillingham, Dorset County Council is advised to review the feasibility of providing a direct rail service to Yeovil Penn Mill Station. This will encourage enhanced travel by train between Gillingham and the surrounding area to Yeovil for commuting and other purposes. Yeovil Penn Mill is more conveniently located in respect of its closer proximity to the town centre. This may be considered as a long term option that could deliver a step change in the use of public transport for commuting in the local area.

Recommendations: 23) Dorset County Council to work with bus operators to assess feasibility of providing additional early morning services between Shaftesbury and Gillingham, and late evening services in the opposite direction. 24) Dorset County Council to work with the Wilts and Dorset Bus Company to extend the number 29 bus service to Gillingham, providing a bus link between Gillingham and Salisbury and its surroundings. This would off er a greater fl exibility of destinations than the existing rail connection. 25) Investigate an integrated ticketing scheme to make travel by rail and bus more fl exible for residents of North and north East Dorset. 26) Assess the long term feasibility of providing a direct rail link between Yeovil Junction and Yeovil Pen Mill Stations.

The more dispersed pattern of trip making, and the low levels of patronage generated by the rural communities surrounding Gillingham and Shaftesbury require the provision of a more fl exible approach to public transport. It is recommended that Dorset County Council continues to support the Door to Dorset DRT scheme. The service should be rolled out to the communities in area 8 (see Figure 6—2). DRT services should be integrated with existing fi xed schedule and rail services. The PLUSBUS style ticketing would enable those using the DRT services to use rail services from Gillingham more easily, providing them with access to services in Yeovil and Gillingham.

6.6.3 Town Infrastructure

Figure 3—4 demonstrates that Gillingham is a relatively self-contained town with regard to commuting patterns. The number of internal commuters is therefore greater than the number of in-commuters and out-commuters. The 2001 Census resident population distance travelled to work data set demonstrates that 37% of Gillingham in employment travel below 2km to work. In addition, 12% work mainly from home. The index of containment and Census data support the improvement of walking and cycling facilities in the town. The following diagrams set out the recommendations for improvements that should be included in the strategy for Gillingham. The recommendations are compatible with schemes identifi ed in the North Dorset North Dorset District-Wide Local Plan.

The recommended cycling and walking schemes for Gillingham are identifi ed in Appendix E.

6.6.3.1 Gillingham Station Interchange Improvements

A scheme to comprehensively improve the existing interchange facilities at Gillingham train station is already recognised as a priority by Dorset County Council. A steering group involving offi cers and members of Dorset County Council, NDDC, local stakeholders, Network Rail and train operators has been established to discuss the improvements that are needed, which include improving access for wheelchair users. It is assumed, based on the availability of sites for development in Gillingham, that the majority of housing could be constructed towards the second half of the RSS period, after 2016. Gillingham station interchange improvements are, therefore, identifi ed as a medium term objective. Improvements should be in place prior to the development of the bulk of the housing in Gillingham and Shaftesbury. Improvements to this interchange will, obviously, be of benefi t to Gillingham but will also benefi t other areas from which services will call at this interchange, especially Shaftesbury.

Recommendation: 27) Implement walking and cycling improvements identifi ed for Gillingham in Appendix E.

Recommendation: 28) Implement Gillingham Railway Station Interchange Improvement Scheme.

The traffi c modelling results discussed in Chapter 3 indicates that the level of traffi c using the A31/A35 corridor between Puddletown and Dorchester will exceed the available capacity in both the morning and evening peak hours in 2016 and 2026. This is due to the convergence of traffi c travelling on the A35 through Dorchester from the A354, A31 and A35.

The A31 between Bere Regis and Wimborne, and the A354 between Blandford Forum and Puddletown, will both operate within capacity in the 2016 and 2026 peak hours.

The A35/A31 east of Dorchester is identifi ed as a regionally important part of the Strategic Road Network (SRN). It consists of a combination of unimproved original single carriageway and modern dual carriageway. Some sections are narrow with poor vertical and horizontal alignment and drainage problems. The importance of the route, and the variation in standard of carriageway, has motivated the Highways Agency to undertake a series of action studies, including a Route Management Strategy looking at congestion and safety issues. The sections identifi ed by the studies as being of low quality are the A35 (between Stinsford Roundabout to Cuckoo Lane) and the A31 between Bere Regis to the Ameysford Roundabout at the eastern end of the Wimborne/Ferndown By-pass.

As part of the stakeholder consultation, the Highways Agency identifi ed that their own strategic modelling indicates that the A31 east of Wimborne Minster (in South East Dorset) currently exhibits one of the highest levels of network stress (comparison of fl ow to capacity) for the SRN in the south west region. Furthermore, in the Highways Agency’s response to NDDC Local Development Framework – Core Strategy Issues and Alternative Options paper (2007), they indicated a concern about the impact of increased movement from North Dorset to Dorchester and Bournemouth. This is an important cross boundary consideration.

6.7.1 Current Infrastructure Proposals

According to the Highways Agency, there are no major infrastructure improvements planned for the section of the A31 between Bere Regis and Wimborne Minster. However, measures to maximise the effi cient use of existing infrastructure along the A31 will be introduced, including variable message signing.

The Highways Agency’s response to both the North Dorset District’s and Christchurch and East Dorset’s Core Strategy Issues and Options Papers made clear that there are no planned major infrastructure improvements for the section of the A31 between Bere Regis and Wimborne Minster.

Their response to the North Dorset Core Strategy Issues and Options paper indicated that they will be unable to obtain funding for improvements necessitated by new development brought forward by the RSS. Consequently, funding for any schemes on the A31 would need to be secured from developers.

A network traffi c control centre covering the county is being established in response to the Multi Area Agreement (MAA) involving Dorset County Council, the Boroughs of Bournemouth and Poole and the Highways Agency. The control centre is intended to minimise the problems caused by congestion on the network making use of a range of intelligent transport tools to maximise the effi cient use of existing road infrastructure. A new network control system will be used at the control centre with the capability of monitoring journey times. This data may be used to provide real time travel information, providing drivers with accurate travel information. This will enable drivers to make better informed decisions regarding choice of departure times and routes taken.

The results of the traffi c modelling indicate that this measure will be of particular benefi t to those using the A35 east of Dorchester and the A31 East of Wimborne. It is recommended that this measure is in place prior to 2016 to contribute towards mitigating the capacity issues identifi ed.

6.7.1.2 A30/ A35/ A31 Route Management Strategy (RMS)

This is an existing RMS commissioned by the Highways Agency to provide a framework for managing and making the best possible use of the existing A30/ A35/ A31 corridor infrastructure. The strategy contains a planned series of improvements aimed at reducing congestion at junctions, improving safety, reducing severance and minimising the environmental impact of this part of the SRN.

The strategy includes a series of studies and safety measures on the original unimproved sections of the corridor, including a scheme to improve drainage at Stag Gate Junction between the B3078 and the A31. Furthermore, junction capacity improvements are being considered for Stinsford and Dorchester roundabout on the A35 at Dorchester.

The RMS is also looking at measures to reduce the severance impact on communities located on the SRN. All communities along the length of the A35/A31 corridor have been bypassed with the exception of Winterborne Zelston, located approximately 8 miles south of Blandford Forum. The Highways Agency is working with Dorset County Council and Parish Councils to develop appropriate mitigation measures.

Most signifi cantly, the RMS is engaging the South West Regional Assembly to encourage a review of the overall standard of the corridor between Dorchester, Wimborne Minster and Ferndown. This is with a view to considering the feasibility of upgrading the unimproved single carriageway sections to modern standards. The substandard width and vertical and horizontal alignment of this section of the A31 contributes to the design capacity issues identifi ed by the modelling that supports this strategy.

The following measures are specifi cally identifi ed for the A31 corridor.

6.7.2.1 Review of Traffi c Movements on B3078, B3073 and C50

Key Stakeholder Consultation responses for this study suggested that congestion around Wimborne Minster on the A31 causes through traffi c to divert from the strategic road network onto surrounding local roads. The inconvenience associated with increased journey times causes drivers to divert from the A31 onto the B3078, B3073 through Wimborne Minster, and on the C50 across Holt Heath Nature Reserve. The scale of this problem should be quantifi ed using the network control system. Measures to address the problem should be designed in consultation with the Highways Agency.

Recommendations: 29) Dorset County Council to make representations to Highways Agency to review the A30/A35/A31 RMS in light of revised RSS targets, with particular reference to capacity of A31 between Bere Regis and Wimborne Minster. 30) Dorset County Council to review traffi c movements on the B3073, B3078 and C50 around Wimborne Minster and Holt Heath to quantify the level of traffi c diverting from the A31 due to peak hour congestion.

6.7.2.2 Fixed Timetable Bus Service Improvements

Table 6—8 indicates that the majority of work trips generated at Blandford Forum are short distance and internal. However there are signifi cant proportions of out commuting to Poole, Bournemouth, Dorchester and Wimborne. These trips all impact on the A35/ A31 corridor. For that reason, it is important that a choice of modes of transport is available for residents of Blandford Forum and the surrounding area needing to travel within the A31/ A35 corridor.

Table 6—11 identifi es the existing public transport links between Blandford Forum, Dorchester, Poole, Bournemouth and Wimborne. Services between Blandford Forum and Dorchester are relatively infrequent, with no service provided during the morning peak hour.

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 110 of 188 The earliest service operating on the number 184 route between Blandford Forum and Dorchester is at 07.46, this may be too early for commuters to use conveniently. The introduction of a peak hour number 184 service between Blandford Forum and Dorchester would be particularly advantageous, given the predicted capacity issues on the A35. The latest returning service from Blandford Forum is at 17.45. This does not permit late working and may discourage commuters from choosing to us public transport. It is recommended that additional late evening services are added to the 184 route between Dorchester and Blandford Forum.

The X8 service provides an hourly connection between Blandford Forum and Poole. The earliest departure from Blandford Forum is at 07.00, with one further service in the morning peak hour. The latest return service from Poole is at 23.30. This existing level of service on this route may accommodate future growth of patronage by commuters.

Direct bus services between Blandford Forum and Bournemouth are much less frequent. Table 6—8 shows that approximately 3% of commuting trips generated at Blandford Forum are to Bournemouth. The existing public transport provision does not accommodate the demands of these commuters. Hence, it is recommended that an assessment of the feasibility of introducing a direct bus link between Blandford Forum and Bournemouth is undertaken. Services should be provided in the morning and evening peak hours. Additional early morning and late evening services may also be considered, as this off ers commuters greater fl exibility.

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 111 of 188 Table 6—11 shows that bus services between Blandford Forum and Wimborne Minster are also infrequent. Table 6—8 indicates that approximately 2% of the commuting trips generated at Blandford Forum are to Wimborne Minster. The number 83 off ers the only viable bus service for commuters travelling between these two settlements. The earliest departure from Blandford Forum is at 07.05 with a further service in the peak hour. The latest return service from Wimborne Minster is at 17.15. It is recommended that the feasibility of providing additional early morning and late evening services on this route is assessed to provide commuters with additional fl exibility.

Route Number Earliest departure Latest return Services /day Days operated Blandford 184 07.46 17:45 8 Mon - Sat Forum - Dorchester Blandford 311 07.16 17.45 5 Mon - Fri Forum - Dorchester Poole - 347/387 07.30 17.45 2 Mon - Sat Blandford Forum - Dorchester Blandford X8 07.00 23.30 14 Mon - Fri Forum - Poole Shaftesbury 309 /310 09:30 15:55 4 Sat - Blandford Forum - Poole - Bournemouth Shaftesbury 83 07.05 17.15 6 Mon - Sat - Blandford Forum - Wimborne Blandford 315 09.20 13.30 1 Wed Forum - Wimborne - Ringwood Blandford 185 07:50 - 2 Mon - Sat Forum - Blandford Forum Camp

Table 6—11 Existing bus services operating from Blandford Forum (Dorset County Council, 2008b)

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 112 of 188 Recommendations: 31) Assess the feasibility of providing additional morning peak hour, and late evening bus services between Blandford Forum and Dorchester. 32) Assess the feasibility of providing a direct bus connection between Blandford Forum and Bournemouth in the AM and PM peak hours. 33) Assess the feasibility of providing additional early morning and late evening bus services between Blandford Forum and Wimborne Minster.

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 113 of 188 Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 114 of 188 7 Recommendations

The table below provides a summary of the recommendations made:

Reference Theme Description 1 Demand The mix, density and location of development should seek to minimise Management the need to travel and encourage sustainable travel patterns - Transport Assessments and Transport Statements should accompany planning applications for development where appropriate. 2 Demand Dorset County Council review its current Travel Plan policy to ensure that it Management responds to predicted growth in the County. 3 Demand Dorset County Council to promote community travel planning initiatives. Management 4 Demand Dorset County Council to assess the feasibility of providing a network of Management Community Travel Exchange Centres in villages communities across North and north East Dorset. 5 Demand The Dorset County Council Residential Parking Study to be adopted. Management 6 Demand The Public Parking Study currently being undertaken by Dorset County Council Management to be adopted. 7 Highway Network Dorset County Council to undertake a Freight Management Study to maximise the effi cient movement of goods vehicles on the existing road network. 8 Highway Network The Multi Area Agreement to deliver the Network Management Centre to provide drivers on county’s main road corridors with accurate travel information. 9 Highway Network Signing of freight on the local road network to be consistent with Policy RTS4 in the draft RSS (post EiP). 10 Public Transport Dorset County Council to consider feasibility of installing real time bus information at bus stops in development policy B and C settlements. 11 Walking and Cycling Audit of signs to be undertaken to ensure connections between the main transport nodes such as public car parks, and central bus stops, and key services in Development Policy B and C settlements are legible for pedestrians and cyclists 12 Walking and Cycling Produce and maintain an up-to-date and defi nitive database of existing and proposed public right of way schemes. 13 Walking and Cycling Defi ne and apply a set of criteria to help prioritise and timetable proposed public rights of way improvements and new schemes.

Table 7—1 Recommendations for all corridors Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 115 of 188 Reference Theme Description 14 Highway Network Review major road schemes in the North Dorset District-Wide Local Plan, and the East Dorset Local Plan that are relevant to the study area, to establish their viability in the current policy and funding climate. 15 Public Transport Dorset County Council to work with Wilts and Dorset Bus Company Ltd to assess feasibility of additional early morning and late evening buses operating on the number X8 service between Sturminster Newton, Blandford Forum and Poole. 16 Public Transport Dorset County Council to work with bus operators to look at feasibility of additional late evening bus services between Blandford, Sturminster Marshall and Wimborne Minster. 17 Public Transport Dorset County Council to work with Wilt and Dorset Bus Company to review timetable for the 184 bus service between Salisbury, Blandford and Weymouth to maximise commuting potential for villages on route. 18 Public Transport Delivery of demand responsive transport services in areas 5 and 8, incorporating the rural hinterlands of Blandford Forum, Shaftesbury and Gillingham. 19 Walking and Cycling Implement walking and cycling improvements identifi ed for Shaftesbury, Blandford Forum and Sturminster Newton in Appendix B, C and D. 20 Walking and Cycling Implement walking, cycling and equestrian schemes identifi ed and prioritised by the rights of way improvement plan.

Table 7—2 Recommendations for the A350 corridor

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 116 of 188 Reference Theme Description 21 Highway Implement schemes to improve the B3081/B3092 and A30 corridor Network 22 Highway Dorset County Council are encouraged to implement the A30/B3081/B3092 Shaftesbury, Network Gillingham and East Stour Route Management Strategy. 23 Public Dorset County Council to work with bus operators to assess feasibility of providing Transport additional early morning services between Shaftesbury and Gillingham, and late evening services in the opposite direction. 24 Public Dorset County Council to work with the Wilts and Dorset Bus Company to extend the Transport number 29 bus service to Gillingham, providing a bus link between Gillingham and Salisbury and its surroundings. This would off er a greater fl exibility of destinations than the existing rail connection. 25 Public Investigate an integrated ticketing scheme to make travel by rail and bus more fl exible Transport for residents of North and north East Dorset. 26 Public Assess the long term feasibility of providing a direct rail link between Yeovil Junction Transport and Yeovil Pen Mill Stations. 27 Walking Implement walking and cycling improvements identifi ed for Gillingham in Appendix E. and Cycling 28 Public Implement Gillingham Railway Station Interchange Improvement Scheme. Transport

Table 7—3 Recommendations for A303 corridor

Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 117 of 188 Revision 05 North and north East Dorset Transport Study March 2010 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited Page 118 of 188 Reference Theme Description 29 Highway Dorset County Council to make representations to Highways Agency to review Network the A30/A35/A31 RMS in light of revised RSS targets, with particular reference to capacity of A31 between Bere Regis and Wimborne Minster. 30 Highway Dorset County Council to review traffi c movements on the B3073, B3078 and C50 Network around Wimborne Minster and Holt Heath to quantify the level of traffi c diverting from the A31 due to peak hour congestion. 31 Public Transport Assess the feasibility of providing additional morning peak hour, and late evening bus services between Blandford Forum and Dorchester. 32 Public Transport Assess the feasibility of providing a direct bus connection between Blandford Forum and Bournemouth in the AM and PM peak hours. 33 Public Transport Assess the feasibility of providing additional early morning and late evening bus services between Blandford Forum and Wimborne Minster.

Table 7—4 Recommendations for A31/A35 corridor

DMRB Volume 11 Section 3 Part 2: Cultural heritage Landscape, heritage and views DMRB Volume 11 Section 3 Part 5: Landscape eff ects Local authorities’ Landscape Character Assessments DfT Local Transport Note 1/95 The Assessment of Pedestrian Crossings (1995) Community severance and accessibility DMRB Volume 11 Section 3 Part 8: Pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians and community eff ects TAG Unit 3.6.2: The Severance Sub-Objective (2003) The Irish National Roads Authority’s Guidelines for Assessment of Ecological Impacts of National Road Schemes (2006) DMRB Volume 11 Section 3 Part 4: Ecology and nature conservation Wildlife Local authorities’ Biodiversity Action Plans and strategies The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) TAG Unit 3.3.10: The Biodiversity Sub-Objective (2004) Environment Agency’s General Quality Assessment (GQA) and river quality maps Water DMRB Volume 11 Section 3 Part 10: Road drainage and the water environment TAG Unit 3.3.11: The Water Environment Sub-Objective (2003)

References

Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) (1997) Making sense of environmental capacity, London School of Economics

Appendix B

Shaftesbury Walking and Cycling Improvements

Figure 7—1 identifi es the locations at which measures to improve walking and cycling facilities should be considered along the A350 in Shaftesbury. Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment sites 1, 2 and 3 are located to the east of the A350 - it is therefore important to minimise any potential severance impact it has, particularly with regard to the accessibility of Shaftesbury Town Centre.

Figure 7—2 shows the existing pedestrian and cycling facilities along Grosvenor Road, north of Ivy Cross. The footway width towards Wincombe Business Park the nearest employment centre to residential site 2, is insuffi cient to provide a purpose built designated combined footway/cycleway between points A and B. There is no alternative but for cyclists to share the carriageway with vehicles. However, further south, between B and C there is adequate space for a dedicated combined footway/ cycleway. This would be of benefi t to the existing residential area lining Grosvenor Road and Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment sites 2 and 4. It would improve pedestrian and cyclist permeability between the residential area to the north of Shaftesbury and the Town Centre.

Figure 7—3 shows existing pedestrian and cycle facilities at Ivy Cross roundabout. It is suggested that a dedicated combined footway/cycleway could be incorporated by widening the existing footway, as there is suffi cient space to do this without encroaching onto the carriageway. This is regarded as being particularly advantageous as the roundabout at present is diffi cult for cyclist to negotiate. Connectivity between the Town Centre and Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment sites 2 and 4 would be improved by this measure.

Figure 7—4 identifi es the existing walking and cycling facilities along Christy’s Lane. At present on the east side of the carriageway there is adequate room to provide a dedicated combined footway/cycleway between the Fire Station running south to the Royal Chase roundabout. This can be achieved without encroaching onto the existing carriageway. In addition, there is adequate space to provide a dedicated combined footway/ cycleway on the western side of the carriageway from Ivy Cross to the junction between Linden Park and the A350. This would increase the permeability of Christy’s Lane for pedestrians and cyclists, providing better access to the nearby supermarket. It would be of particular benefi t to Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment site 1, for access to the Town Centre.

Figure 7—5 identifi es the recommendation for walking and cycling improvements at Royal Chase roundabout. The roundabout is particularly diffi cult for cyclists to negotiate. A dedicated cycleway could be incorporated on the southern arm of the A350. This could be provided without encroaching onto the carriageway. The construction of a dedicated cycleway would benefi t the residential area along Lower Blandford Forum Road to the South of Shaftesbury.

Figure 7—6 identifi es a recommendation for a dedicated combined footway/ cycleway to be constructed along the A30, using the existing footway, by reducing the width of the verge up to the eastern junction of Pix Mead Gardens. Cyclists may then be diverted briefl y off the A30 onto Pix Mead Gardens, before rejoining the A30 on a further new dedicated combined footway/cycleway providing access to Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment site 3.

These recommendations will improve access to Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment site 3 for pedestrians and cyclists and those using public transport. The present walking and cycling facilities on this section of the A30 do not provide easy access to site 3.

The feasibility of introducing improvements that could benefi t cyclists has been assessed for Mampitts Road (this is assumed to be where the main access for Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment site 1 is taken), Wincombe Road (the main access for Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment site 2) and Coppice Street (providing access to Town Centre). Given the current dimensions of the carriageway of each of these routes, it is assumed that there is insuffi cient width to provide a dedicated combined footway/cycleway. There is thus no practical alternative than for cyclists to share the carriageway with vehicles. A 30mph speed restriction has already been applied to all three routes.

Appendix C

Blandford Forum Walking and Cycling Improvements

Figure 7—7 identifi es the recommendations for improving pedestrian and cyclist facilities in Blandford Forum. The improvements are based on the cycle schemes identifi ed by the North Dorset District-Wide Local Plan. They will improve the permeability of the local street network for pedestrians and cyclists generated by existing and new housing.

Figure 7—8 shows the recommendations for improving cyclist and pedestrian facilities along Shaftesbury Lane, connecting Salisbury Road with the Sunrise Business Park north of the A354. There is a newly constructed dedicated combined footway/ cycleway that runs for most of the length of Shaftesbury Lane, between the Sunrise Business Park and the Cemetery. It was noted during a site visit that the existing footway running parallel with the cemetery towards the south of Shaftesbury Lane is too narrow to accommodate a dedicated combined footway/ cycleway. Cyclists therefore have no alternative but to share the carriageway with vehicles. There is an existing dedicated on- road cycleway at the junction between Shaftesbury Lane and Salisbury Road. The green line relates to Policy BL4 in the District-wide Plan, some of this land has already been developed. Photo 8 shows the dedicated combined footway/ cycleway under construction on the western boundary of Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment site 4. This will provide access by bicycle and on foot to the whole site from Shaftesbury Lane.

The newly developed residential street layout shown in photos 10 and 11 does not permit cyclists to ride off road. The footway is not wide enough to be considered as combined footway/cycleway. Cyclists are therefore required to share the carriageway with vehicles. The dashed green line shows the alignment of an existing designated segregated footway/cycleway providing a connection between the area of new housing and Salisbury Road. This route particularly benefi ts Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment site 3, on which 6 hectares of employment land uses could be constructed. It also improves pedestrian and cycle links from new development on Shaftesbury Lane to Pimperne on the A354.

Figure 7—9 shows the length of the A354 between Pimperne and Shaftesbury that is subject of Policy BL11 in the North Dorset District-Wide Local Plan. There is an existing footway along the whole length of the red line that is wide enough to accommodate a dedicated combined footway/cycleway. However, at present trees and shrubs are encroaching onto the path. There is a need to clear the path to enable cyclists to travel between Pimperne and Blandford Forum off -road.

The roundabout between the A350 and the A354 is diffi cult for pedestrians and cyclists to negotiate. The central reserve could be widened to make crossing easier but this may adversely aff ect the geometry and capacity of the A350, which carries a signifi cant amount of traffi c at this point. There is no clear solution that would make the roundabout easier to negotiate without aff ecting the capacity of the junction.

Photographs 10, 11 and 12 (Figure 7—10) show the recommended route for cyclists through the centre of Blandford Forum. On-street parking along East Street (photo 10) currently obstructs the path of cyclists. This is a one way street, so there is an opportunity to provide an on-road dedicated cycleway on the north side of East Road, to the Market Place. The existing street layout at the Market Place suffi ciently calms traffi c for a cycleway not to be required here. In addition, Sheffi eld stands or alternative cycle storage could be accommodated in the Market Place, where the existing pavement is suffi ciently wide. This would provide a convenient location for parking bicycles, immediately in the Town Centre.

Policy BL12 in the North Dorset District-Wide Local Plan relates to Black Lane shown in Figure 7—11. There is an existing combined footway/cycleway towards the south of Black Lane that could connect Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment site 5 with the primary school nearby. However, the existing pavement narrows to the north of the A354. Furthermore, there is insuffi cient width using the existing carriageway to extend the combined footway/cycleway along the full length of Black Lane. The Council would need to acquire a narrow section of land to the south of Black Lane to enable a combined footway/ cycleway to be accommodated. At present, a 50mph speed restriction is applied to the section of Black Lane between the A354 bridge and Blandford Forum Camp. It may therefore be benefi cial to consider either reducing the speed limit further or accommodating bicycles off road should Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment site 5 be developed.

Appendix D Figure 7—12 Overview of Sturminster Newton walking and cycling improvements Sturminster Newton Walking and Cycling Improvements

The schemes in Figure 7—12 are compatible with those identifi ed for Sturminster Newton in the North Dorset District-Wide Local Plan. The North Dorset Cycleway runs directly through the Town Centre, linking Sturminster Newton immediately with Marnhull to the north and Okeford Fitzpaine to the south. The cycleway was established as a recreational route therefore has a circuitous alignment and cannot be practically used for commuting between settlements.

The North Dorset Trailway using the route of the disused Somerset and Dorset Railway Line provides a link to Stalbridge to the north-west and to Shillingstone, Blandford Forum and Charlton Marshall to the south east. The walking and cycling measures identifi ed are designed to tie the existing and proposed residential areas to the existing infrastructure.

Figure 7—13 shows the recommendations to improve the permeability of the street network on the land north of the Live Stock Market, which has recently been developed. A new dedicated combined footway/ cycleway is proposed, that should run along the perimeter of Butts Pond Industrial Estate. This could link with Badgers Way to the north to provide a traffi c free connection to the industrial estate and the new development at the former Livestock Market, which contains the local medical practice.

The combined footway/cycleway could also link with the existing network of paths on the land to the north east (identifi ed as important open or wooded area in the North Dorset District-Wide Local Plan) providing a link to Selwood Close (see Figure 7—14). This proposal would benefi t potential residents of Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment site 3, providing a direct connection for cyclists and pedestrians to Butts Pond Industrial Estate.

Figure 7—15 shows the alignment of an existing footpath running along the eastern boundary of the new residential development. The path is too narrow to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists. Nevertheless, a dedicated combined footway/cycleway could be provided between points 1 and 2, at the corner of Drovers, along which cyclists could cycle safely on- road to Old Market Hill.

Figure 7—16 and Figure 7—17 illustrates the existing walking and cycling facilities at Honeymead, to the east of Sturminster Newton High School. This is a residential area carrying a low volume of traffi c. It is suggested that the existing infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists is adequate. Cyclists are able to cycle easily and safely on-road, whilst the network of footpaths is of adequate width and quality for pedestrians. There are existing good quality routes connecting Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment sites 1 and 2 with Sturminster Newton High School.

Appendix E Figure 7—18 Gillingham walking and cycling improvements overview Gillingham Walking and Cycling Improvements

Figure 7—18 provides an overview of the walking and cycling improvements needed to accommodate growth in Gillingham.

Policy GH18 in the North Dorset District-Wide Local Plan relates to the alignment of the blue line shown in Figure 7—19. An existing path runs parallel to the River Stour, connecting with a combined footway/ cycleway on the B3092 (Peacemarsh) to the north. The path off ers a high quality off -road connection to the National Cycle Route 25 for those living in residential areas aligning Peacemarsh. Between points A and B it is of suffi cient width to accommodate a dedicated combined footway/cycleway. South of Rolls Bridge Way the path narrows (photo 5) to approximately 1 metre. It is recommended that section of path between points C and D is widened to accommodate a dedicated combined footway/cycleway.

Photograph 3 identifi es the potential for the river to encroach onto the path as a result of natural erosion. Some form of protection to prevent this from happening is needed.

These measures would improve the connectivity of Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment site 9 to the surrounding land uses both for pedestrians and cyclists.

Figure 7—20 identifi es recommendations to improve pedestrian and cyclist connectivity between Lodden View and Ham Primary School (Policy GH20 in the North Dorset District-Wide Plan). A new dedicated combined footway/cycleway is proposed between Lodden View and Wren Place. This link could potentially be of benefi t to Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment sites 4 and 5, providing a largely off -road and more direct route to Ham Primary School. Cyclist would be required to cycle on-road between Wren Place and Ham Primary School, using a quiet network of residential roads. This proposal involves the construction of a bridge across the River Stour.

Figure 7—21 identifi es proposals for a traffi c free connection between the B3081 at King John Road, and Kings Court Palace. The existing footway on the corner of King John Road should be upgraded to a dedicated combined footway/ cycleway. The path should be extended to connect with Kings Court Palace. The route involves the construction of a bridge, the location of which is identifi ed in Figure 7—21. This proposal provides a traffi c free route to the B3081 that would be of benefi t to potential residents of Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment site 3 Figure 7—22 B3092 Peacemarsh, Le Neuborg Way, Newbury and New Road walking and cycling improvements The B3092 (becoming the B3081 at Le Neuborg Way) is the main north to south corridor through Gillingham (see Figure 7—22). The existing wide carriageway could accommodate a dedicated combined footway/cycleway along the full length of the route, separating pedestrian and cyclists from traffi c. The only interruption to the combined footway/ cycleway would be on the east side of Peacemarsh, just north of Abbott’s Way, where the boundary of a property extends into the existing footpath, causing pedestrians to cross or walk on road. This proposal would improve the permeability of the internal road network for cyclists and pedestrians through Gillingham. It would be most advantageous for potential residents of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment sites located to the North of Gillingham, most notably sites 1 and 9 by providing an off -road link for pedestrians and cyclists to the Town Centre and Railway Station.

The combined footway/cycleway could link with National Cycle Route (NCR) 25 the alignment of which is shown in Figure 7—22. NCR 25 provides a link to a number of villages to the north and south of Gillingham, including East Stour; furthermore, it provides a more suitable route for cyclists to Wyke than the B3081 Wyke Road, which is a busy and narrow in places.

The combined footway/cycleway along Le Neuborg Way would provide an off -road link between NCR 25, Station Road and Gillingham Railway Station. It was also observed that there is a shortage of cycle storage facilities at Gillingham Railway Station. Cycle parking should be installed at the station to enable cyclists to store their bike safely. This could be achieved as part of the Gillingham Station Interchange Improvements Scheme.

Figure 7—23 shows the B3081 Wyke Road and the residential area to the west of Gillingham. Wyke Road is the main route into Gillingham from the west. It is therefore regularly busy and not easy for pedestrians and cyclists to negotiate. Wide junctions and narrow footpaths make it unattractive to use. Photograph 4 in Figure 7—23 demonstrates how there is no footpath on sections of the north side of Wyke Road and the footpath on the south side is narrow. There is no alternative but for cyclists to cycle on road.

Rolls Bridge Way off ers a more suitable route for cyclists travelling from the residential areas to the west of Gillingham to the Town Centre. Accordingly, it is recommended that cyclists and pedestrians using Wyke Road should be encouraged to divert along Rolls Bridge Way using Cold Harbour. Access to the proposed dedicated combined footway/ cycleway to the north, depicted with a blue line, is taken from Rolls Bridge Way providing a traffi c free route to the north of Gillingham. Figure 7—24 identifi es the existing conditions on Rolls Bridge Way. It carries much less traffi c and there are wider footpaths along the full length of the road.

Figure 7—25 shows Bay Road from which Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment sites 1 and 2 are assumed to take their access. The low volume of traffi c using this route, and existing road dimensions enables cyclists to easily cycle on-road. It is recommended that cycle storage facilities, such as Sheffi eld stands, are provided at the local shops.

Figure 7—26 identifi es walking and cycling improvements for Gillingham Town Centre. It is argued that the existing conditions allow cyclists to cycle on road. The High Street is a 20mph zone that is already traffi c calmed.

However, there is a shortage of cycle storage facilities. Cyclists may be discouraged from leaving their bikes on the High Street unless suitable facilities are provided. There are various locations on The Square and the High Street where Sheffi eld stands could be installed.

Appendix F

Community Travel Exchange Centre Leafl et A

Appendix G

Community Travel Exchange Centre Leafl et B

Adiscussionpaper: Just an idea……

It needs only somewhere to park so It would be really good if we could that you can meet up with others pick up that internet delivery – or and share one car (or MPV, or locally produced veg’ box as well minibus) to all get into town on when we get back…. perhaps even market day (or to the aRoyalMaildeliverythatwastoo supermarket)…..or perhaps the big for our letter box but would surgery in the next village…for a day otherwise mean a special trip to trip to the coast…..to a show…or Yeovil or Poole (or somewhere even on occasions just to similar) to collect it from the parcel work…and save quite a lot in terms depot… of fuel costs, parking charges and Even better – particularly in the quite probably your own energy by winter - if we could also have a bite perhaps not being the driver that day…… of good Dorset food to eat before heading back home… Itmightevenbepossiblethatthe onward journey from that place you leave your car could be done by bus, train and even (in the future) by boat… We all need “comfort” breaks on journeys and it would be helpful if the meeting place where we started our shared journey had toilets …it would be even better if we had ways of checking the times of buses – or could ring a taxi Buro Happold have, as part of their perhaps from the place we parked current Transport Study work for and changed. Dorset County Council and its Local Planning Authority partners East Maybewewouldrathernotuseour Dorset District Council, North Dorset own car on a share basis …so it District Council and West Dorset would be rather good if we could District Council, written a first draft of all park, meet and then take a car a discussion document that, that was ready and waiting for our perhaps in rather technical terms, use–aParishCarorVillageCar discusses such possibilities under the perhaps ….. title “Community Travel Exchange Centres”

Appendix H

Rural Reach Study